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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 150 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 150

 To direct the Attorney General to create a special reward program for 
   individuals providing information leading to the apprehension and 
 conviction of persons committing offenses under section 1030 of title 
            18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

Mr. Al Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Attorney General to create a special reward program for 
   individuals providing information leading to the apprehension and 
 conviction of persons committing offenses under section 1030 of title 
            18, United States Code, 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 ``Providing Rewards for Outstanding 
Tips to Expose Crimes in Technology Act of 2017'' or the ``PROTECT Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. CYBERCRIME REWARD PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish and publicize 
a special reward program for individuals providing information leading 
to the apprehension and conviction of persons committing offenses under 
section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2021 to 
carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,543
<SECURITIES>                                    16,785
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,336
<PP&E>                                           4,092
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,447
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,592
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,204
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,843
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,670
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,301
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,369
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6176
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ALLEN WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00006-gmw-1; 7:06-cv-00014-jct) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s final order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion because it was without authorization from this court. The final order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Wilson 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No: 19-006 February 5, 2019

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Proposes $7,250 Fine to U.S. Geological Survey

for Research Reactor Violations

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a civil penalty of $7,250 to the 

U.S. Geological Survey for violations associated with staffing and training requirements at its research 

reactor facility in Denver.

The violations stem from two separate NRC investigations. One determined that a USGS 

reactor supervisor deliberately falsified documentation showing that reactor operators had completed 

required training, when in fact the training never took place. The supervisor then presented the false 

documentation to an NRC inspector. The second investigation determined that the same supervisor 

violated staffing requirements by performing certain reactor tests without a second qualified person 

present, as required by NRC regulations.

The civil penalty was proposed in relation to the falsified documentation, reflecting the NRC’s 

concern that licensees provide complete and accurate information, the agency said in its letter to USGS

notifying it of the penalty. 

The USGS implemented corrective actions, including new training procedures that require 

employees to sign a record indicating their presence at training sessions, re-assigning the reactor 

supervisor and revoking his access to the reactor facility, and pausing reactor operations to allow for an 

assessment of the violations and the operational culture of the reactor organization. 

The USGS can dispute the violation and penalty, or could agree to third-party mediation 

through the NRC’s alternative dispute program.

Separately, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to the reactor supervisor for his deliberate 

falsification of operator training records.
8/11/10 Draft Cost Analyses

Please note that these are draft works in progress, and the analyses will continue to be draft until 

the rules are proposed in June 2011.

We will have better information by the 8/25/10 outreach meeting and better information after 

that.

We are still gathering information from individual companies.

We will consider additional cost and other information that the SERs, OMB, and SBA provide.

As described in the plan for the cost and economic analyses, we look not only at costs per model,

but also at the combined costs and economic impacts for companies that have multiple model 

lines and multiple products categories, e.g., wood stoves, pellet stoves, and fireplaces. To help 

with this endeavor, we will appreciate review of the updated combined list of certified products.

Some General Observations:

There is no apparent relationship between the retail price of today’s wood stoves and the 

emissions performance. Looks and size are more important factors. We are interested in 

additional information on this market phenomenon. 

There does appear to be a significant difference in retail price between old design, inefficient 

hydronic heaters and those that have qualified for Phase 2 of the EPA voluntary program or 

better. This initial price difference for the consumer appears to be quickly recovered by the lower 

fuel costs for the much greater efficiency of the qualified models. However, retail demand for the 

qualified models still trails that of the less efficient designs. We are interested in additional 

information on this market phenomenon.

Fireplace uncontrolled model retail prices are quite different for manufactured fireplaces versus 

site-built fireplaces. The consumer choice of a manufactured fireplace versus a site-built model 

appears to be independent of emission considerations. The differences in retail price for models 

that have qualified for the EPA voluntary program differ widely, depending greatly upon their 

looks and intended buyer category, e.g., overall cost of the home. We are interested in better 

ways to characterize this phenomenon.

Several SERs have suggested that development of a significantly new model costs greater than 

$250,000. We are also interested in the estimates from other SERs.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Dyess Airmen Commemorate Retaking of Corregidor Island

By Staff Sgt. David Owsianka7th Bomb Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and
Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel P. Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                          |  |                                      
|-------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|               |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. 
|               |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY
|               |  |                         
|               |  | By:                      |  | KESTREL HEAT LLC (General Partner)   
|               |  |                         
|August 8, 2007 |  | By:                      |  | /s/ DANIEL P. DONOVAN                
|               |  |                          |  | Daniel P. Donovan                    
|               |  |                          |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|               |  |                          |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.              
|               |  |                          |  | Star Gas Finance Company
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Harmon, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1009]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Attempted Robbery, 2nd *851Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01124]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35894]


Motive Rail, Inc. d/b/a Missouri North Central Railroad--Lease 
and Operation Exemption--Rail Line of Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company

    Motive Rail, Inc., d/b/a Missouri North Central Railroad (MNCR), a 
Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 
49 CFR 1150.41 to operate, pursuant to a track lease and an operating 
agreement, approximately 9,504 linear feet of track presently owned by 
the Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company (SSMBC), extending between milepost 
24.5 and milepost 22.7 in Quinnesec, Mich. (the Line).
    MNCR states that while its agreement with SSMBC provides MNCR with 
a nonexclusive agreement to provide common carrier rail operations over 
the Line, SSMBC will retain the right to provide service over the Line. 
According to MNCR, there are no agreements applicable to the Line 
imposing any interchange commitments.
    MNCR states that it intends to consummate this transaction ``30 
days from the date of [its] notice, probably around early to mid-
February 2015.'' The earliest this transaction may be consummated is 
February 6, 2015, the effective date of this exemption (30 days after 
the verified notice was filed).
    MNCR certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in MNCR's becoming a Class I or II 
rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed by January 30, 2015 (at 
least seven days prior to the date the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35894, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on applicant's representative, John D. Heffner, 
Strasburger & Price, LLP, 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 717, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: January 20, 2015.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Brendetta S. Jones,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2015-01124 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 the Quarterly Report of Kensey Nash Corporation (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), I, Joseph W. Kaufmann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                       |  |  |  |                         |  |  |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Joseph W. Kaufmann  |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | Joseph W. Kaufmann      |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Calvin Kantonen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First American Scientific Corp.;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

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

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 	presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) 	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 18th day of February, 2004.



| | /s/ Calvin Kantonen
Calvin Kantonen
Principal Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---
No. 91-142.

No. 91-349.

No. 91-356.

No. 91-610.

#### Tidewater Marine Service, Inc., et al. *v.*Aubry et al. Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. et al. *v.*Aubry, Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of Industrial Relations of California. Mead Corp. *v.*Tilley et al. Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund et al. *v.*Demisay et al.

C. A. 9th Cir.;

C. A. 9th Cir.;

C. A. 4th Cir.; and

C. A. 2d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3354

_____________________________

JEFFERY GREENE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

August 7, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Jordan v. State, 549 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1989) (holding that access to a prison law library is not “necessary 

to prepare and transmit a simple notice of appeal” and lack of that 

access did not demonstrate “a right to [a] belated appeal”).

B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jeffery Greene, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.