alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE OF REAUTHORIZATION OF FEE 

COLLECTION AUTHORITY 

November 15, 2021

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Pub. L. No. 117-58, extended OSMRE's Title IV AML 

reclamation fee collection authority through September 30, 2034. The new law also reduced the 

coal reclamation fee rates by 20 percent beginning October 1, 2021.

• Fee rates for all coal sold, transferred, or used between October 1, 2012, and September 

30, 2021, were:

o Surface-mined coal (except lignite) – 28 cents per ton;

o Underground-mined coal (except lignite) – 12 cents per ton; and

o Lignite – 8 cents per ton.

o The alternative Ad-Valorem rate of 10 percent of the value for surface or 

underground and 2 percent of the value for lignite. 

• Fee rates for all coal sold, transferred, or used on or after October 1, 2021, are: 

o Surface-mined coal (except lignite) – 22.4 cents per ton;

o Underground-mined coal (except lignite) – 9.6 cents per ton; and

o Lignite – 6.4 cents per ton.

o The alternative Ad-Valorem rate of 10 percent of the value for surface or 

underground and 2 percent of the value for lignite, continues to be in effect. 

For the fourth quarter filing due on January 30, 2022, the E-Filing website will be reset to 

calculate the fees using the new rates. The new rates will appear on the Coal Reclamation Fee 

Report (OSM-1 Form). Please note that companies are required to report tonnage and pay fees 

for all coal sold, transferred, or used for the entire quarter (October 1, 2021, through December 

31, 2021) at the new rates listed above.

The Payer Handbook will be revised with updated reporting and payment information. In the 

meantime, we are available to answer questions by phone at 1-800-799-4265.

Sincerely,

Patricia Scanlon, Acting Chief

Division of Financial Management
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 1155
**Exhibit
      32**







**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 G/O Business Solutions, Inc. (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
      Report"), I, Brian E. Rodriguez, President, Treasurer and director of the
      Registrant, 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
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.







Dated: November 20, 2006    By: /s/ BRIAN
      E. RODRIGUEZ


Brian
      E.
      Rodriguez


President/Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 49 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 49

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior 
      relating to ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public 
 Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in 
                               Alaska''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2017

Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior 
      relating to ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public 
 Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in 
                               Alaska''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non-
Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure 
Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'' (81 Fed. Reg. 
52248 (August 5, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             744
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                       948
<INVENTORY>                                     52,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,304
<PP&E>                                          85,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,357
<BONDS>                                            315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,743
<SALES>                                        260,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,861
<CGS>                                          199,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   451
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,659)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,989
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,989
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.45
        

</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 30, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2052

Lower Tribunal No. 19-14819

________________

Derrek L. Space,

Appellant,

vs.

Bank of America, N.A.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, 

Judge.

The Power Law Firm, and Bryan A. Dangler (Winter Park); Law Office 

of Robert Wayne, and Shawn A. Wayne, for appellant.

Burke Moore Law Group, LLP, and Paul W. Burke (Atlanta, GA), for 

appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 16
- 00401
- CR EX PARTE HERIBERTO J ACQUEZ

From the 249th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. F46719A

ORDER
Appellant’s brief in this appeal was originally due on December 19, 2016. Appellant requested an extension of time to file his brief due to the workload of appellant’s counsel. An extension was granted and appellant’s brief was due January 18,
2017. App ellant has now filed another motion for extension of time to file his brief , this
time asserting that he cannot file his brief until the trial court rules on appellant’s motion
for new trial which challenged the trial court’s order denying appellant’ s arti cle 11.072 post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus

. The Court has jurisdiction of this appeal. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art 11.072, Sec. 8 (West 2015 ). When or whether the trial court rules on appellant’s pending
motion for new trial is no reason to delay the disposition of the appeal by delaying theEx parte Jacquez Page 2

filing of the brief. As it is, in this type of appeal, the timetables for filing the record and for the briefs are shortened; and we are to “hear” the appeal “at the earliest practicable
time.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 31.1; 31.2. See also 10 TH T EX

. A PP

. (W ACO ) L OC

. R. 14. Nevertheless, we note that the clerk’s record is not complete because it lacks the affidavit referenced in the State’s answer to the application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

a rticle 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to supplement the clerk’ s recor d with the referenced affidavit within 7 days of the date of this order. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days after the supplemental clerk ’s record is filed. Accordingly, “ Appellant’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief ” is
d ismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion dismissed as moot Order issued and filed February 1 , 2017
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are trying to work out a time agreement 
as to how much debate is necessary on the consideration of the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
  We understand statutorily there is 10 hours. We will finish this 
tomorrow. We will have a vote on this tomorrow. If the people want to 
use all the 10 hours, we will vote when the 10 hours is up.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                     As Adopted Pursuant to
                     Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), David Dutton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) 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.

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.



|Date: November 2, 2007 | /s/ DAVID DUTTON
                     David DuttonChief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### Eggert, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Dramburg and another, Respondents.

*October 9*

November *7, 1928.*

*154
      *Charles F. Millmann*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*and oral argument by *Leo Mann,*all of Milwaukee.

Stevens, J.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is based wholly on the claim that the defendants did not exercise the degree of care and skill required of dentists in order to discover *155whether the deceased had a bad heart before they administered the anesthetic.

The proof discloses nothing to arouse any suspicion as to the physical condition of the decedent except her overweight. The defendants testified that overweight has no bearing on the question of whether a gas anesthetic can be safely administered. The plaintiff offered no proof to meet this testimony on the part of the defendants and it stands as a verity in the case.

There was no evidence to sustain the finding that the defendants did not exercise the degree of care and skill exercised by dentists in good standing in their community. If this was not true, it was the duty of the plaintiff to offer proof to establish that fact. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff was the testimony of one physician that in the hospital with which he is connected the patient was always given a physical examination before an anesthetic was administered, whether teeth were to be extracted or some other operation performed. There is no proof that it was usual and customary practice to make such examination in dentists’ offices in Milwaukee before giving an anesthetic for the purpose of extracting teeth. The proof comes far short of meeting the burden that rested on the plaintiff.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# Official Journal L 281/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 281 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 619 November 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 281

English edition

Legislation

Volume 619 November 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1627 of 9 October 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 as regards prudent valuation for supervisory reporting  (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1627 of 9 October 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 as regards prudent valuation for supervisory reporting  (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 32.4





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Thomas B. Specketer, Vice President and Controller of MidAmerican Funding, LLC  (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended  March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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







Date:  May 6, 2011/s/ Thomas B. SpecketerThomas B. SpecketerVice President and Controller(principal financial officer)
#### State, Plaintiff in error, vs. Barrett, Defendant in error.

*April 6*

June *18, 1928.*

For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by the *Attorney*' *General, J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, and *Van R. Coppernoll,*district attorney of Richland county, and oral argument by *Mr. Messerschmidt*and *Mr. .Copper-noll.*

No appearance for the defendant in error.

Owen, J.

The question presented upon this writ of error is identical with that in the case of *State v. Ripley,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 288, 220 N. W. 235), and upon the authority of that case the order and judgment under review must be i affirmed.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 91429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27027]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Thursday, November 21, 2024.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7B, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors 
must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Board Briefing, Share Insurance Fund Quarterly Report.
    2. Central Liquidity Facility's 2025-2026 Budget.
    (The NCUA Board, in its capacity as the Central Liquidity Facility 
Board)

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 
Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-27027 Filed 11-15-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         505,027
<SECURITIES>                                   5,933,303
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,681,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (285,055)
<INVENTORY>                                    852,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,795,918
<PP&E>                                         10,751,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,060,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,342,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,253,193
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    48,334
<COMMON>                                       228,057
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,649,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,342,679
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,339,746
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,144,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                221,745
<INCOME-TAX>                                   21,157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            200,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   200,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .62
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. ANDY J. WATSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

Respondent

v.

KAITLYN NICOLE CROSBY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 195 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of January, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-141344,  33-67114,  and  333-17695 of AMREP  Corporation  on Form S-8 and in
Registration  No.  333-141861  of AMREP  Corporation  on Form S-3 of our reports
dated  July 14,  2008  relating  to our  audits  of the  consolidated  financial
statements,  the  financial  statement  schedule and  internal  control over the
financial  reporting  appearing  in the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of  AMREP
Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2008.


/S/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
July 14, 2008
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7373** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JIMMY PRUITT DAWKINS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:07

- cr - 01454

- HMH

- 1; 6:15

- cv - 02411

- HMH )

Submitted : December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Pruitt Dawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealab ility. 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 prisone r 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, 33 6

- 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. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant ’ s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dawkins’ informal brief does not challenge t he basis for the district
court’ s disposition, Dawkins has forfeited appella te review of the court’ s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument wo uld not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED