alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.A.J.F., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.T.F. JR., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.A.-M.T., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### JACKSON v. STATE.

No. 18253.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1936.

Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

On the 18th of August, 1935, the drugstore of W. S. Jones, which was situated in the town of Vega, Tex., was burglarized and a quantity of cigars, cigarettes, and other property taken therefrom. Some of the property was recovered from the possession of Frank Matthews, who testified that appellant and “Sky” Barnett sold him said property shortly after the burglary was committed. The witness’ version was that he did not know the property had been stolen. Appellant did not testify in his .own behalf.

The indictment was returned September 4, 1935. As shown in his first application for a continuance, on the 5th of September, 1935, appellant made application for subpoenas for several named witnesses, returnable the 7th of September, 1935. The indictment was returned in the district court of Oldham county, and the case had there been set for trial. On the 7th of September, 1935, the court entered an order changing the venue to Moore county. After the case was ordered transferred to Moore county, appellant, on the 10th of September, 1935, had subpoenas issued for said witnesses, returnable to the district court of Moore county. These subpoenas were returned showing that said witnesses were not served, due to the fact that they were absent from the counties where they resided. The case was called for trial September 19, 1935. In his first application for a continuance appellant alleged that said witnesses would testify that he was in Amarillo on the date the burglary was committed and was not in the town of Vega at any time on said date. Some of the witnesses would have testified-that appellant’s codefendant was in the town of O’Donnell, Tex., at the time of the burglary. The affidavit of one of the wit*467nesses was attached to the motion for new trial. It was stated therein that the witness was with appellant in the city of Amarillo on the occasion of the burglary. In short, the testimony of said witnesses would have raised the issue of alibi. That the testimony was material is obvious. Again, appellant appears to have used sufficient diligence to secure the attendance of the witnesses. In the light of the record, we are constrained to hold that the trial court fell into error in refusing to grant the application for a continuance and in overruling the motion for a new trial. See Richardson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 218, 299 S.W. 897.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned, James D. Beatty, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Mount Knowledge Holdings, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 20, 2014By:/s/ James D. BeattyJames D. BeattyPresident, Treasurer, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer, Principal AccountingOfficer and Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Mount Knowledge Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Mount Knowledge Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   1
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT
RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Yongye
International, Inc. (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:




The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010 of the Company fully complies, in all
material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated: November 15,
      2010
            By:
            /s/ Zishen
    WuZishen
WuPresident and
      CEODated: November 15,
      2010
            By:
            /s/ Sam
  YuSam YuChief Financial
      Officer
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 09-301 Date: February 2009 

Subject: FEHB Cost Factor for Second Quarter of FY 2009 

This letter provides the imputed cost factor related to the Federal Employees Health Benefits 

Program (FEHB) for the second quarter of FY 2009. A quarterly cost factor will also be provided for 

the third quarter of the fiscal year. The annual imputed cost factors for all civilian benefit programs 

will be provided to agencies on or before September 15, 2009. 

The FEHB cost factor for the second quarter of FY 2009 is $1,426. 

If you have any questions about this letter, we would prefer that you email us at finance@opm.gov, so 

we have a record of them. Additionally, you may contact us on 202-606-0606. 

 

Keith Willingham 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Center for Financial Services
### You are now leaving OPM.Gov

You are now leaving OPM.Gov and entering a site hosted by a different Federal agency or company.

You will automatically be forwarded to the target page within five seconds.  If you are not automatically forwarded please proceed to https://www.pmf.gov/agencies/value-proposition-and-overview/
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ BORIS SVETLICHNY
 
 53
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7471

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TYRELL KEONI SAUNDERS, a/k/a Rico, a/k/a Little Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:12-cr-00032-JLK-1; 4:14-cv-80771-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 4, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrell Keoni Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Rottenborn, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrell Keoni Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 18-305 Date: October 2018 

Subject: 2019 FEHB Withholdings and Contributions 

The official Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program withholdings and contribution 

rates for 2019 are available in a PDF file format on the OPM web site at 

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp. These are the only rates agency payroll 

providers should use to update their systems and are effective for pay periods beginning in 

calendar year 2019. 

The FEHB withholdings and contribution rates are also available in an ASCII and Excel file 

format. If you are a subscriber to the “FINPAY” listserv, you will receive these files. If you are 

not FINPAY subscriber, please email us at Finance@opm.gov using “FEHB Rates” as the 

subject and the rate files will be emailed to you. 

If you have questions about this letter, feel free to contact us at FinancialBALs@opm.gov or call 

202-606-0606. 

Tonya R. Johnson 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Financial Services
#### WHEELER et al. v. STATE.

No. 20710.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1939.

No attorney for appellants.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellants were jointly indicted and jointly tried for robbery. A judgment of conviction resulted. The punishment assessed against Henry Wheeler was six years in the penitentiary, and that assessed against Rex Ledbetter was eight years in the penitentiary.

The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense. The record is without statement of’ facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment against each of said appellants is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge,

Appellants, in their motion for a rehearing, assert that the indictment is too indefinite and uncertain in its averments to apprise them of the nature of the accusation against them. We have again examined the same and find it sufficient to charge the offense of robbery by assault. See Branch’s Ánn.P.C., p. 1301, Sec. 2381 to 2388.

They next contend that the evidence adduced upon the trial is wholly insufficient to justify and sustain their conviction. We find no statement of facts in the record, and in the absence of the same, *877we are not in a position to review the question.

The motion for a rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3350 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3350

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require a terrorism threat assessment regarding the transportation 
 of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological materials through 
United States land borders and within the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Know the CBRN Terrorism Threats to 
Transportation Act''.

SEC. 2. TERRORISM THREAT ASSESSMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
through the Under Secretary of Intelligence and Analysis, shall conduct 
a terrorism threat assessment of the transportation of chemical, 
biological, nuclear, and radiological materials through United States 
land borders and within the United States.
    (b) Consultation.--In preparing the terrorism threat assessment 
required under subsection (a), the Under Secretary for Intelligence and 
Analysis shall consult with the Administrator of the Transportation 
Security Administration, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, and the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as 
appropriate, to ensure that such terrorism threat assessment is 
informed by current information about homeland security threats.
    (c) Distribution.--Upon completion of the terrorism threat 
assessment required under subsection (a), the Under Secretary for 
Intelligence and Analysis shall disseminate such terrorism threat 
assessment to Federal partners, including the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Energy, and State and local 
partners, including the National Network of Fusion Centers.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3350

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require a terrorism threat assessment regarding the transportation 
 of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological materials through 
United States land borders and within the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We have issued our reports dated March 15, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financialstatements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting included in the Annual Report of Horizon Offshore, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in thisRegistration Statement of Cal Dive International, Inc. on Form S-4 and to the use of our name as itappears under the caption “Experts”./s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Attachment 4: 

INFORMATION PROVIDED DOES NOT VERIFY FAMILY MEMBER ELIGIBILITY

FOR EMPLOYING OFFICE USE 

[INSERT DATE]

[INSERT EMPLOYEE NAME AND ADDRESS]

We have reviewed the documents you submitted to verify FEHB eligibility for your family 

members. Based on our review, the documents are not sufficient to verify eligibility. Therefore, 

we have determined that the persons listed below are not eligible for coverage under your FEHB 

enrollment effective [INSERT DATE]

1. [INSERT NAME OF INELIGIBLE FAMILY MEMBER]

2. [INSERT NAME OF INELIGIBLE FAMILY MEMBER] 

The documentation submitted was not approved due to: 

[INSERT REASON]

Please contact us to discuss whether these individuals may be eligible for temporary continuation 

of coverage (TCC). 

This is an initial determination. You or the affected person have the right to request that we 

reconsider this decision. A request for reconsideration must be filed with the employing office 

listed below within 60 calendar days from the date of this letter. A request for reconsideration 

must be made in writing and must include your name, address, Social Security Number (or other 

personal identifier, e.g. plan member number), your family member’s name, the name of your 

FEHB plan, reason(s) for the request, and, if applicable, retirement claim number. Please also 

include a copy of this letter. 

Requesting reconsideration will not change the effective date of removal listed above. However, 

if the reconsideration decision overturns the removal of the family member(s), the FEHB Carrier 

will reinstate coverage retroactively so there is no gap in coverage. 

Send your request for reconsideration to: 

[INSERT CONTACT INFORMATION]

The above office will issue a final decision to you within 30 calendar days of receipt of your 

request for reconsideration. If you need more time to submit your reconsideration request, please 

contact the employing office listed above in writing. 

If the removal of the ineligible family member(s) results in your enrollment decreasing from 

three or more individuals to two individuals or from two individuals to one individual, you are 

eligible to decrease your enrollment type to Self Plus One or Self Only, respectively, within 60 

calendar days. Contact us to submit a Standard Form (SF) 2809 (Event Code 1C) to request the 
change in enrollment type. We encourage you to consider reducing your enrollment type since

that may decrease your FEHB premium costs. 

As a reminder, any intentionally false statement or willful misrepresentation, such as including 

ineligible family members on a health insurance plan, is a violation of the law punishable by a 

fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of more than 5 years or both (18 USC 1001), and 

may be subject to investigation. 

 If you have questions about this letter, you may contact us at: 

[INSERT EMPLOYING AGENCY INFO]

[SIGNATURE]

cc: [FEHB Carrier]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7294 MICHAEL WOODSON, a/k/a George T. Baskerville, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-505-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to respond to a court order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Because Appellant may be able to save this action by filing an amended complaint in compliance with the district court's order,the dismissal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392 , 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Raymond Irvine, President, Secretary and
Treasurer of Teckmine Industries, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Teckmine Industries,
      Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2009 (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 Teckmine Industries, Inc.                                                                     



Dated: November 16, 2009



| | /s/
      Raymond Irvine                    
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Raymond Irvine                              
| | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal     
| | Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  
| | Officer)                                    



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Teckmine
Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Teckmine Industries, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---