alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-5946.

#### Barbara Robinson, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 387,

178 L. Ed. 2d 21,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6287.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to *22submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6834
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE COBBS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-193) Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Cobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Lee Cobbs appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) (2000). The district court properly construed this action as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed the motion because Cobbs did not obtain authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cobbs , No. CR-95-193 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2002). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2278 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2278

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to extend 
 certain provisions relating to production incentive certificates for 
     producers in the insular possessions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 12 (legislative day, July 11), 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to extend 
 certain provisions relating to production incentive certificates for 
     producers in the insular possessions, 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. EXTENSION OF PRODUCTION INCENTIVE CERTIFICATE PROVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--Additional U.S. Note 5(h)(i) to chapter 91 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking 
``January 1, 1995,'' and inserting ``January 1, 2007,''.
    (b) Extension of Certificate Number Pic-Ev-89.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, the production incentive certificate, number 
PIC-EV-89, issued jointly by the Secretary of Commerce and the 
Secretary of the Interior to the Hampden Watch Company, Inc., pursuant 
to paragraph (h)(i)(B) of Additional U.S. Note 5 to chapter 91 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (formerly paragraph 
(h)(i)(II) of headnote 6 of schedule 7, part 2, subpart E of the Tariff 
Schedules of the United States), shall be deemed to have been reissued 
on the date of the enactment of this Act in the amount of the balance 
remaining on such certificate, and shall expire on the date that is 1 
year after such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Anooraq Resources Corporation (the Registrant) filed under
cover of Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Philip Kotze as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant and De Wet
Schutte as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge 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 Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                             |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/S/ PHILIP KOTZE                             |  | 
|By: Philip Kotze                             |  | 
|Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|Dated: March 23, 2011                        |  | 
|                                             | 
|/S/ DE WET SCHUTTE                           |  | 
|By: De Wet Schutte                           |  | 
|Title: Chief Financial Officer               |  | 
|Dated: March 23, 2011                        |  | 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
DLA Disposition Services site increases ability to support customers with new equipment and training
 By Jeff Landenberger
  The Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services uses a wide variety of material handling equipment to load and off-load trucks every day in support of warfighters. Having people trained on the MHEs is vital not only to complete the mission but to ensure it is done in a safe manner. Without trained operators, equipment sits idle; tasks go undone. **A person undergoes training on a Rough Terrain Container Handler at DLA Disposition Services site at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington. The RTCH is a new addition to the site.




A larger Rough Terrain Container Handler stacks a shipping container on the third level of a stack of other shipping containers in a training exercise.
        Rough Terrain Container Handler
            A person undergoes training on a Rough Terrain Container Handler at DLA Disposition Services site at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington. The RTCH is a new addition to the site.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Unknown
                    
                    VIRIN: 201116-D-M9876-777**When the DLA Disposition Services site at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington, received a new Rough Terrain Container Handler, Brian Davidson, a member of the Expeditionary Site Support Team from DLA Disposition Services at Battle Creek, Michigan, was tasked to go to the site and conduct training. “No one there was trained on it and we are the trainers,” Davidson said noting that the training was vital to carry on with the mission. After 40 hours of training Davidson said his four students were ready to safely operate the RTCH. He added that with if they now can load and unload shipping containers from 20 to 40 foot and lift a maximum of 56,000 lbs. “This piece of equipment gives the site a new capability to support our customers,” Area Manager Robert Burrell.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-287-018]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 5, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 1, 1998, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheet to become effective 
June 1, 1998:

Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 30

    El Paso states that the above tariff sheet is being filed to 
implement two negotiated rate contracts pursuant to the Commission's 
Statement of Policy on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service 
Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines and Regulation of Negotiated 
Transportation Services of Natural Gas Pipelines issued January 31, 
1996 at Docket Nos. RM95-6-000 and RM96-7-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15530 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### De La Rosa v Okwan

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 644

denied
#### Leslie Ann Brody, Respondent, v Propark America, Appellant, and City of New York et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 275]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered December 1, 2005, which denied defendant Propark America’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Propark’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and Propark failed to offer “good cause,” or any explanation at all, for the delay in making it *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Propark’s argument that the court erred in granting defendant City’s motion for summary judgment is not properly before *577this Court since Propark did not take an appeal from the order that granted the City’s motion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 09-1177.

#### Donnell McCloud, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 828, 131 S. Ct. 72,

178 L. Ed. 2d 24,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6192.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 590 F.3d 560.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                              
|No chart available.                                                                              
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     | W   |     | W   |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     | W   | W   |     |     |     |     |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          55,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,279,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,000
<INVENTORY>                                    160,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,647,000
<PP&E>                                      11,032,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,094,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,915,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,822,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,340,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,915,000
<SALES>                                      2,183,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,183,000
<CGS>                                        1,639,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  470,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 1981 Dir ID: 2014

- NM

- 204

- AD

. Contacts. With w h om o u tsi d e the F A A has t h is pr o p os al be en dis c u s se d ?

Org a ni z a t i on Per s on C o nta c ted Da t e Re sp on s e

Nat i onal Bus i ness Aircraft As s o ciat i o n Eli Cotti 10 / 14 / 14

R e gio n al Airline As s o ci a ti o n 10 / 14 / 14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 10 / 14 / 14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 10 / 14 / 14
No. 10-5143.

#### Felicia Triana, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 249,

178 L. Ed. 2d 165,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7033.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 20.
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE
                  SERVICER FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996

                CERTIFICATE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
                                ASSISTANCE AGENCY


                  This certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 9.07 of that
certain Indenture, dated as of November 1, 1996, between The National Collegiate
Trust 1996-S2 and State Street Bank and Trust Company (the "Indenture").
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth
in the Indenture.

                  The undersigned, as the duly elected President and CEO of The
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, the Servicer for The National
Collegiate Trust 1996-S2 (the "Servicer"), a public corporation and a
governmental instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, does hereby
certify as follows:

                  1.     a review of the activities of the Servicer, and the
         Servicer's performance under the Servicing Agreement for the previous
         twelve months ending December 31, 1996 has been made under my
         supervision; and

                  2.     to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
         Servicer has or has caused to be performed all of its obligations under
         the Servicing Agreement throughout the previous twelve months ending
         December 31, 1996 and no Default has occurred under the Servicing
         Agreement.



                                      THE PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
                                      ASSISTANCE AGENCY


                                      By:/s/ Michael H. Hershock
                                         --------------------------
                                      Name: Michael H. Hershock
                                      Title:President and CEO
# 144th FW continues fuel storage construction project

/ Published June 24, 2022
FRESNO AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, Calif., 
Upon entering the Fresno Air National Guard Base, base personnel are greeted with an ongoing construction project of the base’s fuel storage system.

Approved by the Defense Logistics Agency, this $20 million project will remove the underground fuel storage system and replace them with above-ground storage containers. The expected completion date is October 2022.

This project complies with California state law, which requires the entirety of underground fuel storage tanks within the state be removed by 2023.

“Our six underground single-wall tanks with storage capabilities of 160,000 gallons have been removed,’ said Senior Master Sgt. Michael Flaherty, 144th Logistics Readiness Squadron Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant superintendent. “Once complete, there will be two above-ground tanks with storage capabilities of 210,000 gallons, pump houses, a pipeline and loading stations.”

Since the project’s initiation in October 2020, the POL shop, also referred to as Fuels, has had to overcome various challenges. In an effort to keep this project as cost-effective as possible all construction occurred as one large project, leaving the POL shop without fuel and fuel storage.

The solution to this challenge was two-fold. First, the base entered a contract with a civilian fuel company based at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport to store the base’s jet fuel. However, the jet fuel used by civilian aircraft use does not contain special additives required by the U.S. Air Force. These additives include an icing inhibitor, a corrosion inhibitor and a static dissipation additive.

The next part to the solution was to set up a contract with a refinery in Long Beach, Calif., to supply the base with fuel already containing the necessary additives. This pre-blended fuel alleviated the need for Fuels personnel to mix the additives in the refueling trucks by hand and greatly reduced the time needed to return the trucks to the line for the next mission.

This project also requires the hands-on assistance from various shops including the Civil Engineering Squadron, Security Forces Squadron, the Environmental Office, and the Fire Department. CES needs to be aware of any structural change happening on base. SF Airmen monitor all civilian contractors coming onto base. The Environmental office needs managers to be present in the event that there are spills, and to ensure local environmental laws are followed during the construction of the new system. The Fire Department will oversee the installation of a fire suppression system for the two above-ground tanks.

While this $20 million project is a feat, it is necessary and mission essential to all units on base. It’s as SMSgt Flaherty said, "[There's] no squadron we don’t touch."*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 144th Fighter Wing website.*
No. 09-11305.

#### Darcel Melvin, Petitioner v. Stuart Hudson, Warden.

562 U.S. 873, 131 S. Ct. 175,

178 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6702.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. Brooks 5

03/01/2016

590 MAL (2015)

5

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter. Reconsideration Denied April 18, 2016.

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 437
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY WILLIAM BARTLETT, a/k/a Harold C.

Eller,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-94-87, CA-96-953-1)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy William Bartlett, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Patrick Mebane,

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:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Bartlett, Nos. CR-94-87; CA-96-953-1

(M.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 1998). 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