alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED \
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Excalibur
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew C. Flemming, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18,
U.S.C. 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; 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/ Matthew C. Flemming
-----------------------
Matthew C. Flemming, Chief Financial Officer
August 30, 2005
1

UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement

) Between the United States Environmental

400 West Summit Hill Drive ) Protection Agency and the Tennessee

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 ) Valley Authority

)

Allen, Bull Run, Colbert, )

Cumberland, Gallatin, Johnsonville, ) Docket No. CAA-04-2010-1760

John Sevier, Kingston, Paradise, )

Shawnee, and Widows Creek )

Fossil Plants )

 )

____________________________________

FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT

EPA has reviewed all public comments submitted pursuant to Paragraph 211 of the 

Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (Compliance Agreement) via www.regulations.gov, 

ID# EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0710. EPA received comments during the comment period which 

closed on May 20, 2011. EPA appreciates all the comments received and will issue a specific, 

written response to the comments by July 8, 2011. This written response will be published on 

www.regulations.gov, ID# EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0710, and also at EPA's Coal-Fired Power 

Plant Initiative website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/tvacoalfired.html. However, EPA finds that the public comments do not warrant a change to the 

Compliance Agreement or an extension of the public comment period. The public comments 

received, while useful and informative, do not present any information that demonstrated that the 

Compliance Agreement is erroneous, or any new policy concerns which EPA has not already
2

considered. Therefore, EPA finds that the Effective Date of the Compliance Agreement is June 

13, 2011, sixty (60) says after the Date of Execution of the Compliance Agreement.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7767
JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCROY; LIEUTENANT NASH; CORPORAL MOBLY; OFFICER CHRISLEY; TONY FORMAN, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-8534
JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCROY; LIEUTENANT NASH; CORPORAL MOBLY; OFFICER CHRISLEY; TONY FORMAN, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95- 2647-CCB)2 Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, David Eugene Stevenson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In No. 95-7767, Appellant appeals the district court's orderdismissing several claims and Defendants and granting him additional time to supplement his complaint. In No. 95-8534, Appellantappeals the district court's order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for an enlargement of time, granting leave to amend, and directing him to show cause why his Complaint against one Defendant should not be dismissed. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are 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 Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. 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 23.2**

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Gasco Energy, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-153154, 333-128547, 333-121039, and 333-114496) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-122716, 333-116014, and 333-105974) on Form S-8 of Gasco Energy, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Gasco Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Gasco Energy, Inc.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado

March 2, 2011

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

 

Inconnection with this quarterly report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),I, Paul Morton, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  This Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  August 13, 2008                                                     |             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
|                                                                            |             |
| By                                                                              | /s/  PAUL MORTON |   |
| Paul  Morton                                                                    |             |
| Chief  Executive Officer ,President and Manager   (Principal Executive Officer) |             |
|                                                                                 |                  |  |

 

----
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 annual report of Panolam Industries International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K ,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Muller, 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:



Dated:
March 31, 2009

/s/ ROBERT J. MULLER Robert J. Muller Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6598 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

298 Route 292 in Holmes, New York, as the ‘‘Sheriff Adrian ‘Butch’ 

Anderson Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2023 

Mr. LAWLER (for himself, Mr. MOLINARO, Mr. LANGWORTHY, and Ms. 

MALLIOTAKIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 298 Route 292 in Holmes, New York, as 

the ‘‘Sheriff Adrian ‘Butch’ Anderson Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHERIFF ADRIAN ‘‘BUTCH’’ ANDERSON POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 298 Route 292 in Holmes, New 

7 York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sheriff Adri8 an ‘Butch’ Anderson Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6598 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sheriff Adrian ‘Butch’ 

5 Anderson Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03999]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-005]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed February 14, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through February 18, 2022 10 a.m. 
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220018, Final, CHSRA, CA, California High-Speed Rail: San 
Jose to Merced Project Section Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 03/28/2022, 
Contact: Scott Rothenberg 916-403-6936.
EIS No. 20220019, Final, DOD, ID, Construction and Demonstration of a 
Prototype Mobile Microreactor, Review Period Ends: 03/28/2022, Contact: 
Jeff Waksman 703-812-1980.
EIS No. 20220020, Final, USFS, CA, Social and Ecological Resilience 
Across the Landscape (SERAL), Review Period Ends: 03/28/2022, Contact: 
Kathryn Wilkinson 209-288-6321.

    Dated: February 18, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-03999 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth GOFF Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1469

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 27, 2017

Filed: October 25, 2017

Denis Dean, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kenneth Goff, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Goff directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Goff has filed a pro se brief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, *583and has also filed a motion for new counsel.

As to the ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed). We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Goffs motion, and affirm the judgment.

1

, The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira Christopher JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-14251 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 29, 2017)

Lindsay Feinberg, Charles L. Calhoun, Elizabeth Sara Howard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tamara A. Jarrett, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ira Christopher Jackson, Pro Se

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ' TJOFLAT, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ira Jackson appeals from the district court’s revocation of his pretrial release. It appears from the district court record, however, that Jackson has decided to plead guilty to two of the charges against him and is now being held pending sentencing. Because release pending sentencing is governed by a different statute than pretrial release, it appears to the Court that he is no longer eligible for pretrial release and that, as a result, his appeal from the district court’s revocation of his pretrial release is now moot. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3142 with id. § 3143(a).

The Court therefore directed the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. The government filed a response saying that it believed the appeal is moot. Jackson did not respond.

As a result, because our own review of the district court record and the government’s response lead us to believe this case is now moot and Jackson has given no reason to think otherwise, this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnell Francis TIMLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3366

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 21, 2017

James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Donnell Francis Timley, Pro Se

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL

Robert E. Bacharach, Circuit Judge

Mr. Donnell Timley is a federal inmate who filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the motion, Mr. Timley presented constitutional challenges to his sentence. The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion on two grounds: (1) It was untimely, and (2) Mr. Timley waived the right to collaterally attack his sentence.

Mr. Timley wants to appeal. To do so, he seeks a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (certificate of appealability), 1915(a)(1) (leave to proceed in forma pauperis).

We can issue a certificate of appealability only if the underlying rulings on timeliness and waiver were at least reasonably debatable. *See Laurson v. Leyba,*507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that when the district court denies a habeas petition based on timeliness, the court of appeals can issue a certificate of appeala-bility only if the district court’s ruling on timeliness is at least reasonably debatable).

In seeking a certificate of appealability, Mr. Timley reurges the merits of his underlying claims. But he does not address the timeliness of his § 2255 motion or say why he thinks the district court erred in finding a waiver through the plea agreement. Though Mr. Timley is pro se, we cannot craft arguments for him. *Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,*425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

Because Mr. Timley does not question the district court’s reasons for dismissing the § 2255 motion, we deny a certificate of appealability. As a result, we must dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). And in the absence of a reasonably debatable appeal point, we deny Mr. Timle/s request to proceed in forma pauperis. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); *Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C.,*497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001085475
<NAME> CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          84,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,604
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,409
<PP&E>                                       2,810,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                 285,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,005,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          559,887
<BONDS>                                      6,065,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,344,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,005,197
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,325,830
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  683,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               803,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             434,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (578,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (578,130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,794)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (585,924)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.7 LETTER OF INTENT AMENDMENT

  
Exhibit 10.6
 

 

 APD Antiquities, Inc.
 1314 South Grand Blvd, Suite 2-250
 Spokane, WA 99202
 Phone: (509) 744-8590
 

 

 December 30, 2011
 

 Mr. Martin Clemets, Managing Member
 Northern Adventures, LLC
 1028 East Larch Street
 Osburn, Idaho 83849
 

 RE:  Extension of Due Date of Promissory Notes.
 

 Dear Mr. Clemets:
  
 This letter sets forth the terms and conditions upon which APD Antiquities, Inc.  ("APD"), a Nevada corporation, through its subsidiary to be formed APD Metals, Inc. (APDM”) hereby agree to extend the due date of the various promissory notes from December 31, 2011 to March 31, 2012.  It being further understood and agreed to that as a consequence of the inclement weather causing a delay in the mutual objectives, APD agrees to lend up to a total of $300,000, if available.  Secondly, to secure additional capital, APD will be required to issue more common stock and Northern Adventures, LLC confirms that the proposed capital structure will have to be adjusted, if and when an asset acquisition agreement is executed.  The target equity split on a post acquisition basis will be 20% to APD and 80% to Northern.
 

 If the foregoing accurately sets forth your understanding, please sign both copies of this letter in the space provided.
 

 

 Very truly yours,
 

 Agreed and accepted this 30th day of December, 2011
 

 Place: Spokane, Washington on December 30, 2011
 

 

 _________________________
 Cindy K. Swank, President
 APD Antiquities, Inc.
 

 Place: Osburn, Idaho on December 30, 2011
 

 

 

 _________________________
 Martin Clemets, a Managing Member
 Northern Adventures, LLC
#### Gossi KIOTA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72155

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed May 16, 2017

Mark Barrett Nerheim, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark B. Nerheim, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner'

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Ph. D., Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gossi Kiota petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, humanitarian asylum, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.1*334Central to the IJ’s determination and the BIA’s subsequent dismissal of Kiota’s claims was the IJ’s finding that Kiota was not credible. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. *Soto-Olarte v. Holder,*555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The IJ provided specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Kiota, and the IJ’s findings address key elements of Kiota’s claims. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Inconsistencies in the petitioner’s statements must go to ‘the heart of [his] asylum claim’ to justify an adverse credibility finding.” (quoting *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001))). For example, the record contains multiple contradictions about the date that Kiota entered the United States, a fact crucial to his claim for asylum. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (stating that asylum application must be filed “within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States”). Additionally, relevant to all of his claims, Kiota’s testimony that his family was enslaved in Mauritania is inconsistent with his mother’s letter, which omitted any mention of enslavement and stated that Kiota’s family held substantial assets. Kio-ta had sufficient time and opportunity to respond to these discrepancies but offered no persuasive explanation. In the absence of credible testimony, Kiota’s claims must fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because Kiota filed his application before the effective date of the REAL ID Act, the *334REAL ID Act provisions do not apply to his claims. *See Li v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011).
#### Israel J. Rogers, Respondent, *v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued March. 1, 1872;

decided April 2, 1872.)

*M. W. Bookstaher*for the appellant.

*Ira M. Tuthill*for the respondent.

Appeal dismissed on authority of *Wright*v. *Hunter*(46 N. Y., 409) and *Sands*v. *Crooke*(46 id., 564).