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

# Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Advisory Committee Public Briefings on Civil Rights and the Rising Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education
EventPublished: March 1, 2024Event Date: March 25, 2024

Commission Business Meeting
EventPublished: February 13, 2024Event Date: February 23, 2024

Pennsylvania Advisory Committee Releases Report on Fair Housing Access & Zoning Practices
NewsPublished: July 28, 2023

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: An Analysis of Fair Housing Access & Zoning Practices in Pennsylvania
ReportsPublished: July 20, 2023

Fair Housing Access and Zoning Practices in Pennsylvania - Panel III
EventPublished: March 7, 2022Event Date: April 29, 2022

Fair Housing Access and Zoning Practices in Pennsylvania - Panel II
EventPublished: March 7, 2022Event Date: April 22, 2022

Fair Housing Access and Zoning Practices in Pennsylvania - Panel I
EventPublished: March 7, 2022Event Date: March 18, 2022

Pennsylvania Advisory Committee Releases Report on Impact of Exclusionary Practices in Pennsylvania Public Schools
NewsPublished: April 15, 2021

Disparate and Punitive Impact of Exclusionary Practices on Students of Color, Students with Disabilities and LGBTQ Students in Pennsylvania Public Schools
ReportsPublished: April 9, 2021
  Subscribe to Pennsylvania
Listen

# Privacy Policy

You do not have to provide personal information to visit this site. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will collect no personal information about you when you visit our Web site unless you choose to provide that information. The only information the Commission automatically collects is the visitor's Internet domain and Internet Protocol address, the type of browser and operating system used to access the site, the pages visited and time spent on each page, and the date and time of the visit.

The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, passed by Congress in 1974, establishes certain controls over what personal information is collected by the federal government and how it is used. The act guarantees three primary rights: (1) the right to see records about oneself, subject to the Privacy Act's exemptions; (2) the right to amend that record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely or incomplete; and (3) the right to sue the government for violations of the statute, including permitting others to see your records, unless specifically permitted by the act.
EXHIBIT 99.1

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Harold Rashbaum, the Chief Executive Officer of ShopNet.com, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: October 11, 2002



                                                             /s/ Harold Rashbaum
                                                             -------------------
                                                           Name: Harold Rashbaum
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2351 

To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to provide additional 

safety standards for professional boxing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and 

Mr. VEASEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to 

provide additional safety standards for professional boxing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Professional Boxing 

5 Safety Enhancement Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS. 

7 Section 5 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 

8 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6304) is amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2351 IH

1 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

2 striking ‘‘or an alternative requirement in effect 

3 under regulations of a boxing commission that pro4 vides equivalent protection of the health and safety 

5 of boxers’’; 

6 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 

7 paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and 

8 (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(2) A boxer must provide with the application 

11 for a license or for renewal of the license an original 

12 or certified copy of the results of medical tests 

13 which— 

14 ‘‘(A) were performed by a laboratory dur15 ing the calendar year for which the license is 

16 being issued or no earlier than 30 days before 

17 the date on which the application is submitted; 

18 ‘‘(B) show that the boxer is not infected 

19 with the human immunodeficiency virus; and 

20 ‘‘(C) show that the boxer is not infected 

21 with the hepatitis virus. 

22 ‘‘(3) An ambulance continuously present on 

23 site. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2351 IH

1 ‘‘(4) Emergency medical personnel with appro2 priate resuscitation equipment continuously present 

3 on site.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### PEOPLE ex rel. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO., Respondent, v. NEFF et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of the Nassau Electric Railroad Company against B. G. Neff and others, constituting the board of assessors of the city of Brooklyn.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Mayor of the City of New York, Appellant, v Council of the City of New York, Respondent. Lillian Roberts, as Executive Director of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

*915Motion by Nassau County for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Three copies of the brief may be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-55180, 333-63268, 333-68718, 333-81290) of
Sales Online Direct, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2003, on our audit of
the consolidated financial statements of Sales Online Direct, Inc., which report
appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sales Online
Direct, Inc.


Carlin, Charron & Rosen, LLP

Worcester, Massachusetts
March 14, 2003
#### FLEISCHMAN, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Joseph Fleischman against Jeremiah T. Smith. C. N. Bovee, Jr., for appellant. A. H. Parkhurst, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification


I, Kevan Casey, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, Inc.;

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

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

4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 19, 2003


/s/ Kevan Casey
--------------------------
Kevan Casey, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
02/13/03 08:35 '8'206 220 7108 ALJ SEATTLE +-H BALTIMORE 

· .. ~. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs 

JOHN SMELLEY 

Respondent 

Docket Number CG S&R 03-0055 

CG Case No. PA 1682308 

ORDER DISAPPROVING SETTLEMENT 

Issued: February 13, 2003 

Issued by: Edwin M. Bladen, Administrative Law Judge 

Respondent has been charged in a single count complaint with having been 

convicted within the preceding l 0 years of violating a dangerous drug law of the State of 

Louisiana 1

• The filing of the complaint commences the suspension and revocation 

hearing process. See 33 CFR § 20.401. 

The Coast Guard has now submitted for approval under 33 CFR § 20.50a 

proposed settlement of the hearing process which provides that the Respondent will 

undertake a "cure." 

A cure settlement is only available where the respondent has been charged with 

being a user of dangerous drugs. See 46 USC§ 7704(c) and Appeal Decision 2535 

(Sweeney). Respondent has not been so charged. 

The complaint here very specifically alleges a conviction of a dangerous drug law 

as contemplated by 46 USC§ 7704(b). That provision mandates under such 

circumstances that the mariner's license, document or credential be revokoo. 

Consequently, I am unable to find that this proposed settlement is lawful and thus 

must deny its approval. 

1 The complaint recites as statutory authority for the violation both 46 USC § 7704(b) [conviction of a drug 

related offense] and 46 USC§ 7704(c) [licensee or document holder is a user of dangerous drugs unless cured]. 

Order Disapproving Settlement- I 

141002/004 
+H BALTIMORE l4J 003/004 

The proposed cure settlement in this matter is disapproved and denied. 

As a result, this matter will be set for hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 13,2003 

Edwin M Bladen 

Administrative Law Judge 

Order Disapproving Settlement- 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                              ILEX ONCOLOGY, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amount)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Quarter Ended March 31,
                                                       ------------------------
                                                          1996          1997
                                                       ----------    ----------
<S>                                                    <C>         <C>
Net Loss ...........................................   $     (416)   $     (468)

Weighted average number of shares of Common Stock
 and Common Stock equivalents outstanding:
 Weighted average number of shares of Common Stock
  outstanding ......................................        1,188        10,276
 Common Stock equivalents applicable
  to convertible preferred stock (1) ...............        6,093             0
 Weighted average number of Common Stock equivalents
  applicable to stock options and warrants (1) .....          939           608

Common Stock and Common Stock equivalents ..........        8,220        10,884

Net loss per share - primary .......................   $    (0.05)   $    (0.04)



Net Loss ...........................................   $     (416)   $     (468)

Weighted average number of shares of Common Stock
 and Common Stock equivalents outstanding:
 Weighted average number of shares of Common Stock
  outstanding ......................................        1,188        10,276
Common Stock equivalents applicable to convertible
  preferred stock (1) ..............................        6,093             0
 Weighted average number of Common Stock equivalents
  applicable to stock options and warrants (1) .....          939           613
                                                       ----------    ----------

Common Stock and Common Stock equivalents, assuming
 full dilution .....................................        8,220        10,889

Net loss per share - fully diluted (2) .............   $    (0.05)   $    (0.04)
</TABLE>



(1)      Convertible stock, stock options and stock warrants issued within one
         year prior to an initial public offering with a conversion price or
         exercise price below the estimated initial public offering price has
         been included as outstanding for all periods specified by SAB No. 83
         (Topic 4-D).

(2)      This calculation is submitted in accordance with Item 601(b)11 of
         regulation S-K although it is not required by APB Opinion No. 15 
         because it results in dilution of less than 3% or is antidilutive.





                                      -17-
#### Samuel Marciano et al., Appellants, v Goldome FSB, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in memorandum decision at Special Term, Ostrowski, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — summary judgment.) Presenil — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32

1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shirley
Singleton, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Edgewater Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), and Kevin R. Rhodes, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that,
to the best of his or her knowledge:

The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.

|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/SHIRLEY SINGLETONShirley Singleton
President and Chief Executive Officer                           
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/KEVIN R. RHODESKevin R. Rhodes
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)

---

QuickLinks
#### Frances Panaggio, Appellant, v Michael N. Panaggio, Respondent.

— Order unanimously modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following memorandum: In this matrimonial action, plaintiff contends that the court’s award of $375 per week in maintenance does not adequately take into account the parties’ preseparation standard of living. Plaintiff also contends that the court erred, in its determina*527tion of defendant’s means to support plaintiff, in failing to consider the defendant’s recent receipt of over $450,000 as distributions of equity in two partnerships in which defendant has an interest.

We conclude that the court’s award does not adequately reflect the parties’ preseparation standard of living or defendant’s capacity to contribute to plaintiff’s support. Based on the circumstances, including the husband’s receipt of large partnership distributions in 1983 and 1984, we exercise our discretion to award the wife $500 per week in maintenance. Domestic Relations Law § 236 B (6) (a) (1) requires the court, in fashioning a maintenance award, to consider the "income and property” of the respective parties. Moreover, the evidence establishes that those distributions, while not reported as income by defendant, are not required to be repaid by him and were treated by him as disposable income. In any case, the record establishes that defendant has sufficient means to meet the additional maintenance obligation we are imposing, even disregarding the partnership distributions. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.—spousal maintenance.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

ALONZO DEWAYNE WILLIAMS, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________ 

Docket No. 2023-0287 

Enforcement Activity No. 7651367 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AND ORDER

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On February 27, 2024, I convened a hearing of this matter in Houston, Texas. Andrew 

Myers, Esq., and LT Chrisina L. Jeanes appeared on behalf of the United States Coast Guard. 

Keith Letourneau, Esq., appeared on behalf of Alonzo Dewayne Williams (Respondent). 

At the outset of the hearing, the parties advised that Respondent had submitted a 

voluntary surrender pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 5.203. Consistent with the surrender, the Coast 

Guard moved to withdraw this matter as permitted by 33 C.F.R. § 20.311. Without objection, I 

GRANTED the Coast Guard’s motion and directed the Coast Guard to file a written motion for 

clarity of the record. 

On February 29, 2024, the Coast Guard filed its written motion pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 

20.311. In support of the motion, the Coast Guard attached the voluntary surrender agreement, 

which Respondnet signed on February 27, 2024. 

Consistent with its motion made during the hearing on February 27, 2024, the Coast 

Guard moves to dismiss this matter in light of 46 C.F.R. § 5.203, which provides: 

§ 5.203 Voluntary surrender to avoid hearing. 
2 

(a) Any holder may surrender a credential or endorsement to the 

Coast Guard in preference to appearing at a hearing. 

(b) A holder voluntarily surrendering a credential or endorsement 

shall sign a written statement containing the stipulations that:

(1) The surrender is made voluntarily in preference to 

appearing at a hearing; 

(2) All rights to the credential or endorsement surrendered 

are permanently relinquished; and, 

(3) Any rights with respect to a hearing are waived. 

(c) A voluntary surrender of a credential or endorsement to an 

investigating officer in preference to appearing at a hearing is not 

to be accepted by an investigating officer unless the investigating 

officer is convinced that the holder fully realizes the effect of such

surrender. 

Upon review of the file and the foregoing authority, I will GRANT the Coast Guard’s 

unopposed request and DISMISS this matter WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated March 6, 2024, at

Houston, Texas

____________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE TOMMY CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
#### WATKINSON, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Mortimer S. Watkinson, administrator, etc., against the Long Island Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-60828 Summary Calendar

GORDON ANTHONY STRAKER, also known as Gordan A. Straker, also known as Gordon Straker, also known as Gordon A. Straker,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A034 989 174

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gordon Anthony Straker, a native and citizen of St. Vincent and the Grena d i n e s , seeks a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA concluded t h a t S t r a k er’s motion, which was his second motion to reopen, was untimely and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). He argues that the Suprem e C ourt’s decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder , U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 29, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-60828 Document: 00511555356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2011No. 10-60828

130 S. Ct. 2577 (20 1 0 ) , undermined the grounds for the BIA’s removal order because it established th a t h is prior misdemeanor drug convictions did not qualify as aggravat e d f elonies. Straker also asserts that the state’s classification of his offenses as misdemeanors is controlling and that his convictions were too remote to be the bases for the denial of his request for relief. Straker doe s no t challenge the BIA’s determination that his second motion t o r eopen was untimely or time-barred. Instead, he presents arguments t h a t

concern the validity of the BIA’s January 2007 order of removal. Thus, because Straker has not addressed the basis on which his second motion to reopen was denied, he has abandoned the relevant issue for review by failing to brief it. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). His petition for review is DENIED.

2 Case: 10-60828 Document: 00511555356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2011