alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL- OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xonora~ls %. Riley 

Texas 2rieon EoarQ 

Eri%dy %llildhlg 

6an antonlo, Tsxes 

Deeer our. Siyattt 
ft&rabie U. Rile:: 3yat.t -. p*gc 22 

~4.tek%'%vl~%m% co5cerr&1~ the conduct of any and 

all oi~lolals ena araploy%~s of the Texas Prlpon ~a- 

$%q aad report salB ~oamalttes~~e flnciln@, meether 

rulth the sobatena% of such eo/dano% awl in the aciamittoe*s oplnlcn Rlcht te portfrtsnt to lts flndln@9, . 

to tha Forty-ninth Le(:lalstum. 

*said oomcittea m47 hold Its 5eGGlcns at 

the CsplWl or at the Stats Penitentiary st Euntsoillo, or at sny of the Farm8 ooonnaoted ritb the 

State iJrlso0 SyGtex, end au17 uatu9e wltasssee to appear at an7 plaa6rheFe SGid s%selonio are held, and . . 

ahall beentltle~. to 9~. frm the fund h%r%lnett%r 

set asiaa, for 8311 of Its eatual nsasosary travrllag 

ena other erpexmes. 

. "T&w% is heraby crpproprlatea out 0r tha, 

Coitlri~nt Esp%ns% Fund of the Foity-%l&atb X.%&latam the ltwa of rtftaerl IIuRareq Dollars (gkK!01 to 

meet ths payment of zmqeseary expmws lmmrr& by 

Geld oouQnltt~* 

l?ousc Biaple R%solutlon.Bo. 311, it ~111 b% 

neat, 3s not ~1, broads 61 txm@ohsrtsi~e ut Sancte Reoo-‘ 

hi&n .srOi.,4 aonsi&ered ln oar orIgina opirilon Wo. 

0-524s. Th% autharlty expxwmly mnferr%d In th& 

Hciune ?waolut.ion 1s."wJ ask@ e tbozwu& lRv%atlga~tim 

of the Wisce Bptea a& Itao manapaent,~ulth cdtthar- _. 

. It.7 to sumuoa wit44eres sna 44lllpal thefr attenaa44e 

upon it8 ~MS~OIIB, ana tak% waefi48 oonosr~fne the 

oollduot ot any ma,.m otfl4id4 45a ~107wm 0r th4 

.Texas Prison syatm, end report naid~oarrPlittseta find- 

; ; 

In&p, together with t$% stabstianao of suah avl&moe ae 

in the 04waltteots opinion ni&ht be petitlnent to Its 

rinahgtt, to ths Forty-nlnt$ L%&3latum.- 

or twurse, this authority lnoluude* i7 iilglrieatSctn ~an7 pmwm leelly lnolaectal to the sapress 

poskra Pantloned. 

xe thlhk an iapllqd autkorlty la airen to 

th% ceaaoulttee to employ suok 8t%xio&raphle,.or other 

h6lp a5a &GSiGtGlltG, 88 Wl?Illa be M%%QMt#~lp l3%O%S%%S7 

to the taking of %vla%sim~, end tbe.reportlag the'oaaislIttee* findings, but beyorla-taa thE~oGuEmltte% would. ' 
hate m authority or lee1 right *to tGlcQ with them a 

pnraon rho i% not a m%mb%r of either tha oodtt%e or 

the &%pi%la?4ir% and bestow apon h&z tlm mm% rig&a 

and privll%gGG* enjoyed by the emmlttee. 53 other 

w8rd0, this comalttee, as pointsd out In our original 

,~ opinion, uould hate no panr to de1efGtG any portion 

of its powers or kaposea &rtl&s‘upon sn]r other person. 

Phi% %n%wer la neotassarlly gesntel a% your 

~.: inquiries sre g%lllsr%l. We are not. aaviwa or the 

8~oif10 rti0t or f%at% &rlng.riae to your qa%%tlone, .. 

;;at~myt, 0r aotzr~e, speak 4tih4rv1tss than in gemm- 

.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-152V

Filed: August 30, 2017

Not for Publication

*************************************

DENNIS SCHAEFER, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Jeffrey S. Pop, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Claudia B. Gangi, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 31, 2017, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012) alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome 

(“GBS”) as a result of his receipt of influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 22, 2015. Pet. at 1. 

The undersigned held the initial status conference on May 1, 2017. During the status 

conference, the undersigned ordered respondent to file a status report by June 30, 2017 indicating 

his view of the case. After requesting and receiving an extension of time, respondent filed a status 

report on July 31, 2017 saying he wanted to file a Rule 4(c) Report. On July 31, 2017 the 

undersigned ordered respondent to file his Rule 4(c) Report by August 31, 2017.

On August 30, 2017, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report. On page 1 of his report, 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)

(Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that 

all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets 

or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar 

information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a 

decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the 

document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within 

the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”); 

influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

respondent does not contest 

entitlement
2

respondent writes “he does not contest entitlement in this matter.” Resp’t’s Rep. at 1. Because 

respondent does not contest entitlement, the undersigned rules that petitioner is entitled to 

damages. 

Petitioner made a demand on May 31, 2017. The undersigned will schedule a telephonic 

status conference to discuss settlement negotiations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2017 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master
{"agency":"CFTC","generated":"2015-11-24 14:53:23","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["CFTC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["50"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["63"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["55"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q4"}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOSEPH EARL BAILEY, SR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 260 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOSEPH EARL BAILEY, SR.,**

**Petitioner No. 261 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOSEPH EARL BAILEY, SR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 262 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM**[260 MAL 2016, 261 MAL 2016 and 262 MAL 2016] - 2**

AND NOW **, this 1st day of November, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
# FCM Data February 2013

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF Februay 28,&KFF0000 &K0000002013FROM REPORTS FILED BY April 5,&KFF0000 &K0000002013	&P of &N
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (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 registrant, 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 registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/  Steven J. MalcolmSteven J. MalcolmChief Executive Officer of Williams Pipeline GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Pipeline Partners L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31210-31211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14647]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-829]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Amdur or Karine Gziryan at 
(202) 482-5346 and (202) 482-4081, respectively, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an 
order/finding for which a review is requested and a final determination 
within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination 
is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 
Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination 
to a maximum of 365 days and for the final determination to 180 days 
(or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the 
preliminary determination) from the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Background

    On November 30, 2000, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel wire rod from the Republic of Korea, covering the 
period September 1, 1999, through August 31, 2000 ( 65 FR 71299). The 
preliminary results are currently due no later than June 2, 2001.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review

    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary 
results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results until no later

[[Page 31211]]

than September 30, 2001. See Decision Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to 
Bernard T. Carreau dated concurrently with this notice, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce 
building. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days 
after the publication of the preliminary results notice.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: May 22, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Group II.
[FR Doc. 01-14647 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**Certificate
      of Principal Accounting Officer as required by 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") of Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation
      ("Aurora") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15,
      2007, I, Ronald E. Huff, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
      Principal Accounting Officer) of Aurora, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to my knowledge:





1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




March
              15,
              2007
            By:
            /s/
              Ronald E. HuffRonald
              E. Huff, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
              Financial and Principal Accounting
              Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been
      provided to Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Aurora Oil
& Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its staff upon request.
SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC.
CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
  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 Corporation.
 th
 /s/ Jim ShawJim ShawChief Executive Officer and Vice Chair
Shaw Communications Inc.




---



##### 



SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC.
CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
  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 Corporation.
 th
 /s/ Steve WilsonSteve WilsonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Shaw Communications Inc.
EXHIBIT 32


<PAGE>

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


In connection with the quarterly report of Synergy Resources Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2011, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") Ed
Holloway, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Frank L. Jennings,
the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


 April 11, 2011                     /s/ Ed Holloway
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Ed Holloway, Principal Executive Officer



April 11, 2011                    /s/ Frank L. Jennings
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  Frank L. Jennings, Principal Financial Officer
#### Alejandro Antonio TINOCO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-70228.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

Peter Singh, Esquire, Peter Singh & Associates, P.C., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.

*602Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Antonio Tinoco Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Tinoco Martinez did not establish past persecution based on his experiences in Mexico. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Tino-co Martinez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. *See id.*at 1018 (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Tinoco Martinez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ti-noco Martinez did not establish a likelihood of being tortured in Mexico. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to address Tinoco Martinez’s contention that his criminal conviction did not render him ineligible for adjustment of status in light of Proposition 36 because this argument was not exhausted before the BIA. *See Tall v. Mukasey,*517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MARIA-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10235.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Michael D. Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Rachelle Barbour, Esquire, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Maria-Juarez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Maria-Juarez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by (1) refusing to consider imposing a lower sentence in order to achieve paxity with fast-track defendants; (2) treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory; and (3) failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); *see also United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo,*556 F.3d 736, 739-41 (9th Cir.2009).

Maria-Juarez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances and the age of the prior conviction that was the basis for a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The record reflects that the 70-month sentence is substantively x'easonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez,*567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).

In accordance with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand with instructions that the distxict court delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding to delete the reference to § 1326(b) because it is a sentence enhancement and not a separate punishable offense).

Maria-Juarez’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: October 29, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 65958]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29oc02-33]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, November 29, 2002.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-27601 Filed 10-25-02; 2:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```