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



The undersigned, David Hallonquist, President and Chief Executive Officer of Play LA Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Play LA Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 2008 (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 Play LA Inc.



Dated:  March 12, 2009









/s/ David Halloquist_____

David Hallonquist





President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

- 2029

Mr. Keith A. Anderson

, Director

District Department of the Environment

1200 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Dear Mr. Anderson :

On July 22 , 2014

, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision

to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the District Department of the

Environment (DDOE) . Th is SIP revision consist s of the 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

for the Washington

, DC

- MD

- VA 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area

. EPA has determined that the

submittal is administratively a nd technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR ).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Marilyn Powers

, Office of Air Program Planning

, at (215) 814

- 2 308 . She is the principal contact for this

rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division
p. 1


# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# $£00jll-E-16 9 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10AM

Sheet 209 of 264P. 2

From : Date : Contact : Contac tReport Melani e Proctor , Pacific Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) Jul y 16,199 8 Mr . Rober tDeGraf f an d Mr . Danie l Helma n 

### A 9 4 5 2 

## ll-£-/ M

&

Contact : Mr

. Rober tDeGraf f an d Mr . Danie l Helma n Company : Werne r Company

, Frankli n Park , TX . Telephon e Number : (847)455-945 0 Fa x Number : (847)455-945 8 PAG E 1 - 2 &

Contac tSummary : Mr . Helma n explaine d tha tth e mixin g vessel s a tthei r Frankli n Par k facilit y ar e covere d b y a dom e tha ti s attache

d to the oute

r sleev e o f th e mixing shaf

tH e adde d tha tn o visibl e gap s ar e presen ti n th e mixin g vesse l cover durin g actua l mixin g operations . Mi . ILJIHJU U IUJ U uinle# - J ^ Mii p h i th a BOV W fa r addimjqatwiali tin

tthei r opt ninp r it n B rVurtfcdacmy

- ^ ^ Mr . Helma n als o pointe

d ou ttha toccasionall

y smal l amount s o f resi n ma y b e mixe d manuall y i n bucket

s whic h hav e n o covers . Bu

th e confirme d tha tal l o f their mechanica

l mixin g operation s ar e covered .
»

K o « *«•«' > 

## -f*l < INFORMATIO

N I S ACCURAT

E fl

X*A^~C&L~S{/J\+ 

## fry /*rk i A l «/ -P. 3



# WERNER

1080 0 W . BELMON

T AVENU

E FRANKLI N PAR K (847 ) 455-945 0 FRANKLI

N PARK , T L 60131.044 8 FA X (847 ) 455-946 5 

## FACSIMIL E (TELEFAX ) NUMBER : 1 (847 ) 455-946 5 DATE : ^ -I A ^S TIME : SEN D TO : 

### COMPAN Y 

# r*«•/*'* • ^v n J<yv^, A < ATTENTIO

N FACSIMIL

E NUMBE Rf/ 9 ^^/ Z " & *-3 y SEN T BY : NAME : 

# r\(fL4^

TM.«J__l_l___ NUMBE RO F PAGE S (FOLLOWIN G THI S COVE RSHEET ) ___________ MESSAG E . ^ £«ryc^fc ^ 'C^ K 

### ^Vx«T7i» . /c ^ /^.^^ggw«, T 

# ;,iv i -?>.u^ 5

I F AN Y COPIE S AR

E UNCLEA RO

RINCOMPLETE

, PLEASE CONTACT U S IMMEDIATEL Y PHONE : 1 (847 ) 455-945 0 o r FAX : 1 (847 ) 455-946 5 OPERATOR ^
#### IN RE: Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Petitioner,

No. 17-1238

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Alexander Otis Matthews, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*762PER CURIAM:

Alexander Otis Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act on this court’s judgment vacating the district court’s order and remanding. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered an order on April 19, 2017, directing Matthews to notify the district court within 30 days whether he wishes to delete his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) claims from his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, or whether he wishes to have the entire Rule 60(b) motion treated as a successive § 2255 application. Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted on Matthews’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. Matthews also filed a supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Government to respond to the successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claims. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, the relief sought in the supplemental petition is not available by way of mandamus. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11673]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Being 
Imported for Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that a certain object, entitled ``A Lavish Still Life 
with Terracotta Vase, A Clump of Cyclamen and Scattered Diamonds and 
Sapphires'' by Jan Brueghel the Elder, being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary exhibition or display at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the 
Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural 
significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#26554345524f49481412131f66555247524308414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1063757364797f7e222425295063647164753e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-04867 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Wilson v. McIntire.

1. Practice: demurrer considered while answer on file. Defendant filed a demurrer to the petition, and, pending the demurrer, he also filed an answer, indorsed “filed subject to the demurrer.”- *Held*that it was competent for the-court, in its discretion, *to*hear and determine the demurrer while the answer was thus on file.

*Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court.*

Wednesday, March 7.

Action for the recovery of damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. Defendant filed a demurrer to the petition. He afterwards filed an answer, which was indorsed “filed subject to the demurrer.” The court afterwards sustained the demurrer, and, plaintiff electing to stand on his petition, judgment was entered against him. Plaintiff .appeals.

*R. Caldwell*and *L. A.*Riley, for appellant.

*Henley da Hale*and *Fred Courts, Jr.,*for appellee. ■

*712Reed, J.

The only point urged by counsel is that defendant by answering waived tbe demurrer, and that it was not competent for the court, after tbe answer was filed, to pass upon tbe questions raised by the demurrer. We need not determine whether the indorsement on the answer, that it was filed subject to the demurrer, had any effect. The court, in the exercise of the discretion with which it is clothed, might have permitted the withdrawal of the answer, and the filing of the demurrer. What was done was but the equivalent of that; and we do not see how any of plaintiff’s rights could have been prejudiced by the practice adopted by the court.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.59

                            AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE

         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE, entered into this 31st day of March,
1996, by and between 3401 ASSOCIATES, L.P., as Lessor, and UNIPHY HEALTHCARE,
INC., as Lessee.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into a Lease Agreement (the
"Lease"), dated ___________________, 1996, for a total of 2,190 square feet of
rentable floor area known as Suite 380 (the "Premises") in the 3401 West End
Office Building (the "Building"); and

         WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee desire to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to
Lease for the purposes of amending the Lease.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the rent as
stipulated and of the mutual covenants, it is agreed and understood between the
parties hereto that said Lease shall be amended as follows:

         1.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34 of the Lease or any
               other provision of the Lease, Lessee shall have the right to
               assign or sublease the Premises to the Guarantor without the
               consent of the Lessor. Upon such assignment to the Guarantor, the
               Lessee shall notify the Lessor of such assignment but such
               notification shall not give Lessor the rights set forth in
               Section 34 of the Lease. Assignment by the Lessee to the
               Guarantor shall relieve Lessee of any obligation under the Lease.

         2.    Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning
               ascribed to such terms in the Lease. The Lease, except as herein
               amended, shall remain in full force and effect and otherwise
               unchanged.


LESSOR:                                     LESSEE:

3401 ASSOCIATES, L.P., ACTING BY            UNIPHY HEALTHCARE, INC.
AND THROUGH EAKIN & SMITH, INC. ITS
PROPERTY MANAGER

By:                                         By:
       ----------------------------                -----------------------------

Title:                                      Title:
       ----------------------------                -----------------------------

Date:                                       Date:
       ----------------------------                -----------------------------
#### In the Matter of James Coleman et al., Appellants, against John H. Delaney et al., Constituting the Board of Transportation of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued November 16, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*775
      *William H. Barrow*for appellants.

*Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Seymour B. Quel*and *Charles F. Murphy*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thaoher, J.
#### Gregory G. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-2409

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Gregory G. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Haungs, David Arthur Hubbert, Randolph Lyons Hutter, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory G. Williams appeals the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and penalties with respect to Williams’ 2012 and 2013 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the tax court. *Williams v. Comm’r,*Tax Ct. No. 032187-15 (U.S. Tax Ct. Nov. 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
April 26, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TEX-FIN, INC., AND TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, Appellants

NO. 14-15-00267-CV V.

GUSTAVO E. DUCHARNE, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the final summary judgment in favor of appellee 

Gustavo E. Ducharne, signed January 25, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find error. We therefore order the 

judgment of the court below REVERSED with regard to the portion of the 

judgment remanding the case to the TWC for further proceedings to determine the 

amount of wages due to Ducharne. We order the remainder of the judgment 

AFFIRMED and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with our 

opinion.

We further order that appellant Tex-Fin, Inc., shall pay costs by reason of 

this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Naomi Fawn MARSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17306

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 13, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 11, 2017

James Hunt Miller, Esquire, Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Ellinor R. Coder, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before:-KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

*905MEMORANDUM **

While the Social Security Administration (SSA) is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether [a claimant meets] the statutory definition of disability,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), Dr. Betat’s chart note contained information about Marsh’s condition and capacity that went beyond a mere statement of disability. These findings informed his assessment that she “appear[ed] to be disabled.” The ALJ therefore erred by neither considering Dr. Betat’s opinion nor providing reasons to reject it. “In order to reject an examining physician’s opinion, the ALJ has to give clear and convincing reasons.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, SSA’s position was not substantially justified. See, e.g., Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To avoid an award of EAJA fees ... the government must show that its position was substantially justified at each stage of the proceedings.”).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**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 China Agri-Business, Inc. (the “Company”)
            on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
            Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
            Liping Deng, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
            to
            18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.


*/s/
              Liping
              Deng*Liping
              DengPresident
                    and Chief Executive Officer
                  *(Principal
                    Executive Officer)*March 28, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 75 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 75

 To allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations required under 
chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to offenders with 
 mental disease or defect to be conducted by a clinical social worker.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations required under 
chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to offenders with 
 mental disease or defect to be conducted by a clinical social worker.

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

SECTION 1. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

    The first sentence of subsection (b) of section 4247 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by--
            (1) striking out ``or'' after ``certified psychiatrist'' 
        and inserting a comma; and
            (2) inserting after ``psychologist,'' the following: ``or 
        clinical social worker,''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50402 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REGINALD DWAIN HART, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-01-CR-96-ALL

-------------------- December 11, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Reginald Dwain Hart pleaded guilty to count 1 of an indictment charging him with distribution of crack cocaine. Hart has appealed his sentence. Hart contends that the district court erred in determining that he is a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because Hart had previously been convicted for at least two prior controlled substance felony offenses. Hart contends that the prior convictions were related because they were consolidated for trial and for sentencing. See U.S.S.G.No. 02-50402 -2- § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3.). Hart concedes that this court held to the contrary in United States v. Garcia , 962 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds , Buford v. United
States , 532 U.S. 59, 63-66 (2001), and United States v. Ford , 996 F.2d 83, 85-86 (5th Cir. 1993). Hart contends that Garcia and Ford should be re-examined in light of Vallez v. State , 21 S.W.3d 778, 783 (Tex. App. 2000)). Because this question was not raised in the district court, we review it for plain error. See United States v. Deville , 278 F.3d 500, 509-10 (5th Cir. 2002). Under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(b), this court may correct forfeited errors only when the appellant shows the following factors: (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) . Because Hart’s argument was rejected by this court in Garcia and Ford , Hart cannot show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error. See United States v. Webster , 162 F.3d 308, 358 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6849 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6849

  To prohibit the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps, American 
     Climate Corps, or any similar program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

 Mr. Crenshaw introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps, American 
     Climate Corps, or any similar program, 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 ``Cancelling Climate Crusaders Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING A CIVILIAN CLIMATE CORPS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
executive action, the Corporation for National and Community Service 
(in this Act referred to as the ``Corporation'') shall not establish a 
Civilian Climate Corps, American Climate Corps, or any similar program 
as described in Executive Order 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 7619, relating to 
tackling the climate crisis).
    (b) Prohibited Activities.--The Corporation shall not establish any 
program, direct any entity to create such a program, or provide 
guidance to any partnering entity to engage in any of the following 
activities:
            (1) Promoting environmental justice.
            (2) Restoring roads to natural conditions.
            (3) Remediating and reclaiming devastated lands left by 
        extractive industries.
            (4) Organizing community-based resiliency coalitions and 
        working groups.
            (5) Developing farm to institution distribution models.
            (6) Conducting energy audits.
            (7) Advising citizens on climate policy.
            (8) Educating students through school and youth programs.
            (9) Improving pollution monitoring.
                                 <all>
```