alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      23,808,705
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,011,360
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,011,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          736,904
<BONDS>                                     18,964,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,309,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,011,360
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               354,423
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             439,009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (93,123)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CAROL A. SIMMONS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 Civil Action 2:17-cv-1096 

 v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 

1383(c)(3) for review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) 

denying her application for benefits. (ECF No. 1.) On March 16, 2018, Plaintiff was ordered to 

show cause, within fourteen days, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to effect service of process and why the Court should allow an extension of time to effect 

service. (ECF No. 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not moved for an extension of time to effect service 

or otherwise responded to the Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the 

Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for 

failure to effect timely service of process. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 
2

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and 

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat=l Latex 

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district 

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation 

omitted)).

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: April 3, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### Vernon BRIDGES *v.*A. E. HEMMER, as Father and Next Friend of Steven HEMMER, and A. E. HEMMER, Individually

73-279

506 S.W. 2d 835

Opinion delivered March 25, 1974

*Alex G. Streett,*for appellant.

*Ike Allen Laws Jr.,*for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Steven Hemmer, appellee, was injured in a motorcycle accident when struck by defendant appellant Bridges’ automobile. The jury returned a verdict for the appellant. After the jury rendered its verdict and was discharged, the foreman and another juror, who had remained, were observed to have in their possession some papers which the foreman delivered to the court. They were then questioned by appellees’ and appellant’s attorneys. The examination revealed that two of appellees’ requested instructions had been found by the jury in the jury room upon retiring for its deliberation during which the jury read them. It appears the instructions were inadvertently left there following a court conference. One of the instructions was a general verdict or a closing instruction which was given in substance as proffered by the appellees. The other was appellees’ comparative negligence instruction. Another was given which differed only in that it provided for recovery of the alleged damages by the appellee father in a representative capacity and individually. A subsequent proceeding was held wherein the court granted appellees’ motion for a new trial over appellant’s objection. We agree with the appellant.

*313In doing so we need not reach the propriety of the proceedings under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2204 (Repl. 1964), which prohibits examination of a juror to establish grounds for a new trial except to show a verdict was arrived at by lot.

Our “new trial” statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1901 (Repl. 1962), sets forth the following standard:

> A new trial is a re-examination in the same court of an issue of fact after a verdict by a jury or a decision by the court. The former verdict or decision may be vacated and a new trial granted, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, affecting materially the substantial rights of such party:

> First. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or prevailing party, or any order of court or abuse of discretion, by which the party was prevented from having a fair trial.

Since both of the instructions found in the jury room were appellees’ requested instructions, we do not perceive any prejudice from the jury’s possession of appellees’ own instructions. Appellees have not demonstrated any irregularity affecting materially their substantial rights which prevented them from having a fair trial within the standards of § 27-1901, *supra.*

Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict.
Case: 3:18-mj-00038-SLO Doc #: 10 Filed: 03/27/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 73
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4543 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4285 Payne Avenue in San Jose, California, 

as the ‘‘Anthony J. Cortese Post Office Building’’. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4543 RFS

1 SECTION 1. ANTHONY J. CORTESE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 4285 Payne Avenue in San Jose, 

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Anthony 

5 J. Cortese Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Anthony J. Cortese 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ JAMES A. FONTAINE  
|James A. Fontaine      
|Chief Executive Officer



Date: August 1, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19727-19728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9091]


Certification Related to the Government of Haiti Under Section 
7045(E)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2015

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State, 
including under section 7045(e)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. 
L. 113-235), I hereby certify that Haiti is taking steps to hold free 
and fair parliamentary elections and to seat a new Haitian Parliament; 
is selecting judges in a transparent manner and respecting the 
independence of the

[[Page 19728]]

judiciary; is combating corruption, including implementing the anti-
corruption law by prosecuting corrupt officials; and is improving 
governance and implementing financial transparency and accountability 
requirements for government institutions.
    This Certification shall be published in the Federal Register, and 
copies shall be transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress.

    Dated: April 1, 2015.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-08468 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17301 and #17302; WASHINGTON Disaster Number WA-00100]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated 01/05/2022. *Incident:*
                         Flooding and Mudslides. *Incident Period:*
                         11/13/2021 through 11/15/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 01/05/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/07/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/05/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/05/2022, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Areas (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Clallam, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties and the Lummi Nation, Nooksack Indian Tribe, and Quileute Tribe. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Washington: Chelan, Island, Jefferson, Okanogan, Snohomish. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.438Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.660Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.830Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.830Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17301 6 and for economic injury is 17302 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Barbara Carson, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2022-00518 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7507

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM DON RODGERS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-93-231) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Don Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Don Rodgers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West Supp. 1999) and motion for correction of PSI report under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Rodgers , No. CR-93-231 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 1999).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934 AND AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Spear &
Jackson, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Fletcher, acting Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.

 /s/ William Fletcher
 --------------------

 William Fletcher
 Acting Chief Executive Officer


 March 14, 2005
#### Floyd WILLIAMS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 76-93

619 S.W. 2d 628

July 6, 1981

*Floyd D. Williams,*pro se.

*Steve Clark,*Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of capital felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed, *Williams*v. *State,*260 Ark. 457, 541 S.W. 2d 300 (1976). In 1976, petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Criminal Procedure Rule 37 which was denied. He was allowed to file a second Rule 37 petition in 1979 because his original petition presented only conclusory allegations. This petition was also denied.

Petitioner now seeks a transcript at public expense. The motion for transcript is denied. Since a motion for transcript *316is a petition for postconviction relief, petitioner’s motion must be considered as his third attempt to obtain relief pursuant to Rule 37. Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2 (b) provides: “All grounds for relief available to a prisoner under this rule must be raised in his original or amended petition. Any ground not so raised or any ground finally adjudicated or intelligently and understanding^ waived in the proceedings which resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceedings that the prisoner may have taken to secure relief from his conviction or sentence may not be the basis for a subsequent petition.”

In the past, in cases where allegations of the original petition were conclusory, subsequent Rule 37 petitions have been allowed and decided on their merits. When an original petition presented grounds for relief with supporting facts, however, any subsequent petition was dismissed in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2 (b). Since this practice may have resulted in inconsistency in the treatment of subsequent petitions, this Court will no longer consider any subsequent petitions unless the original petition was specifically denied without prejudice. (See per curiam this date.)

In the case at bar, petitioner has had ample opportunity to pursue his postconviction remedies under Rule 37 and this Court will not consider a third petition.

Petition dismissed.

Adkisson, C.J., not participating.
From: Don DiCristofaro <DDiCristofaro@enernoc.com>

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Rick Counihan <RCounihan@enernoc.com>

Date: 12/12/2012 10:55 PM

Subject: Follow up re EDF Late Filed Comment

Melanie,

This is a follow up to the conversation Rick Counihan and I had with you last Friday

regarding your question about the bar chart on page 5 of the late filed comment made by

the Environmental Defense Fund to the RICE NESHAP docket on December 3, 2012

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-1482). This bar chart was created by EnerNOC using PJM

supplied data for economic demand response (DR) that has entered the PJM market as a

result of FERC Order 745. The data shown is the DR from the PJM Economic Load

Response Program. Any generators participating in this program must be permitted by the

appropriate state/county for non-emergency engine use. This chart has nothing to do with

engines participating in emergency demand response (e.g., the Emergency Load Response

Program (ELRP) in PJM).

Currently EnerNOC only has two sites with generators participating in the PJM Economic

Load Response Program and all of the generators are natural-gas fired. Currently,

EnerNOC only targets natural gas gens because other fuels are too expensive to run

relative to current power prices (which are driven by low price of natural gas).

Approximately 80 to 85% of EnerNOC’s portfolio in this DR program is from curtailment

only (e.g., turning off equipment or turning down lights, AC, etc.).

Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.

Don

Don DiCristofaro, CCM – Air Quality Meteorologist Consultant

EnerNOC, Inc. | 101 Federal Street, Suite 1100 | Boston, MA 02110

m: 617.834.8408 | f: 857.221.9464

DDiCristofaro@EnerNOC.com| www.EnerNOC.com

EnerNOC - get more from energy

This email and any information disclosed in connection herewith, whether written or 

oral, is the property of

EnerNOC, Inc. and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. 

This email may contain

information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. 

Distributing or copying any

information contained in this email to anyone other than the intended recipient is 

strictly prohibited.