alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case

but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is

filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1374

EDWARD W. MURPHY,

Petitioner,

versus

KENTUCKY CARBON COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(98-844-BLA, 88-2704-BLA)

Submitted: August 17, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999

Before ERVIN,* HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward W. Murphy, Petitioner Pro Se. Ronald Eugene Gilbertson,

KILCULLEN, WILSON & KILCULLEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece,

Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondents.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Edward W. Murphy seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West

1986 & Supp. 1999). Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

Board. See Murphy v. Kentucky Carbon Coal, BRB No. 98-844-BLA,

(B.R.B. Mar. 16, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 105 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 105

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION REGARDING UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

    The President shall not deploy or maintain United States Armed 
Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory 
authorization for such use

              

 enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this concurrent resolution supersedes the requirements 
of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 105

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Prohibiting the President from deploying or maintaining United States 
   Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific, 
                  subsequent statutory authorization.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-30-1999
<CASH>                            48,785
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                  3,518,461
<ALLOWANCES>                      95,000
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               3,486,524
<PP&E>                         1,542,798
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,443,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 4,691,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          7,218,893
<BONDS>                          348,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            110,608
<PREFERRED>                          250
<COMMON>                         180,048
<OTHER-SE>                     3,177,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   4,691,196
<SALES>                       22,743,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              22,833,012
<CGS>                         18,860,017
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 18,860,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               4,435,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               355,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (817,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                       4,491
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (822,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 (311,408)
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,133,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.08)



</TABLE>
----

|   | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                     |   |   |                                      |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|  Date: May 16, 2011 |   |   |  /s/ Francis M. DiNuzzo              |
|                     |   |   | Francis M. DiNuzzoChief Executive Officer |
# C_2017105EN.01000301.xml

| 4.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/3

---

Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2017/C 105/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Adib Mayaleh (no. 53), Gen. Ghassan Belal (no. 59), Mr Kifah Moulhem (no. 66), Dr Wael Nader Al –Halqi (no. 106), Mr Imad Mohammad (no. 109), Mr Omar Ibrahim Ghalawanji (no. 110), Mr Adnan Hassan Mahmoud (no. 117), Eng. Bassam Hanna (no. 157), Dr Mahmoud Ibraheem (no. 162), Dr Lubana Mushaweh (no. 166), Mr Omran Ahed (no. 168), Dr Abdul-Salam Al Nayef (no. 171), Dr Nazeera Farah Sarkees (no. 173), Mr Abdullah Khaleel Hussein (no. 176), Mr Jamal Sha'ban Shaheen (no. 177), Mr Suleiman Al Abbas (no. 181), Mr Kamal Eddin Tu'ma (no. 182), Ms Kinda al-Shammat (no.183), Mr Hassan Hijazi (no. 184), Mr Ismael Ismael (no. 185), Dr Khodr Orfali (no. 186), Mr. Samir Izzat Qadi Amin (no. 187), Dr Malek Ali (no. 189), Dr Hassib Elias Shammas (no. 191), Mr Houmam Jaza'iri (no. 1), Mr Mohamad Amer Mardini (no. 2), Mr Mohamad Ghazi Jalali (no. 3), Mr Kamal Cheikha (no. 4), Mr Khalaf Souleymane Abdallah (no. 7), Mr Hassan Safiyeh (no. 9), Mr Issam Khalil (no. 10), Mr Mohammad Mouti' Mouayyad (no. 11) and Mr Ghazwan Kheir Bek (no. 12), persons appearing in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

1

2

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with amended statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons before 11 April 2017, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

1

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

2

---
Victor Dewayne JONES, Petitioner, v. Joe ERRINGTON.

No. 19-7840.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Ian FURMINGER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18M76.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Exhibit 10.32
<PAGE>

[THE BANK OF NEW YORK LETTERHEAD]


                                             July 16, 1997


Standard Funding Corporation
335 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbury, New York 11791

     Attention:     Alan J. Karp
                    President

Gentlemen/Ladies:

        The Bank of New York (the "Bank") is pleased to confirm that it holds
available to Standard Funding Corporation (the "Company") an $8,000,000
unsecured line of credit.

        All advances under this line of credit shall be evidenced by, shall be
payable as provided in, and shall bear interest at the rate specified in, a
promissory note of the Company in the form included with this letter.

        In connection with this line of credit, the Company shall pay to the
Bank a fee of three-eights of one percent (3/8%) per annum on the average daily
unused amount of this line of credit. This fee shall be calculated on the basis
of a 360 day year for the actual number of days elapsed and shall be payable
monthly in arrears.

        For so long as this line of credit is held available or the Company
shall have any obligations to the Bank in respect of this line of credit, the
Company shall deliver to the Bank, at the same time as the same is delivered
pursuant to the Note Agreement dated December 27, 1995 between the Company and
Bernard G. Palitz (the "Note Agreement"), a copy of each certificate which is
delivered pursuant to Section 8.2(a) or 8.2(b) of the Note Agreement.

        As you know, lines of credit may be cancelled by either party at any
time, and the making by the Bank of any advance under this line of credit is
subject to the Bank's satisfaction, at the time of such advance, with the
condition (financial and otherwise), business, prospects, properties and
operations of the Company. Unless cancelled earlier as provided in the
immediately preceding sentence, this line of credit shall be held available
until May 31, 1998.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       THE BANK OF NEW YORK

                                       By: [illegible]
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Title: Assistant Vice President
                                                  -------------------------
GREENPOINT FINANCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                  Exhibit 11.1
              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Quarter Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                               September 30,                     September 30,
                                                       ------------------------------    ------------------------------
                                                           2000             1999             2000             1999
                                                       -------------    -------------    -------------    -------------
                                                                   (In millions, except per share amounts)

<S>                                                     <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>
Net income                                              $      67.0      $      61.7     $      190.2     $      156.6
                                                       -------------    -------------    -------------    -------------

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
   during each year - basic                                    89.5             96.2             90.5             95.3

Weighted average number of common shares and common
   stock equivalents outstanding during each year -
   diluted                                                     91.1             98.1             91.7             97.6

Basic earnings per share                                $      0.75      $      0.64     $       2.10     $       1.64
                                                       -------------    -------------    -------------    -------------

Diluted earnings per share                              $      0.74      $      0.63     $       2.07     $       1.61
                                                       -------------    -------------    -------------    -------------
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-13-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          65,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  917,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,620
<INVENTORY>                                     45,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,232,191
<PP&E>                                       1,107,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 508,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,090,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          639,158
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,529
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,339,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,090,118
<SALES>                                      3,489,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,489,743
<CGS>                                        1,613,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,568,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (120,726)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                  73,063
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    96,860
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
Mickel L. MARZOUK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7776.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                                 14,936
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           1,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                            17,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       90,838
<PP&E>                                              1,189,744
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,363,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,801,303
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                            1,917,108
<OTHER-SE>                                         (2,758,674)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,363,331
<SALES>                                             2,436,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    2,436,745
<CGS>                                                 814,540
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         814,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    2,595,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     81,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1,054,990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (957,029)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (957,029)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.36)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7480

RICHARD JESSO BILLUK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD CATERISANO, District Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA04-2334-1-RDB) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Jesso Billuk, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard Jesso Billuk seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition for lack of jurisdiction. The § 2241 petition, filed by Redina Perez, Billuk’s fiancé seeking to act as his “next friend,” seeks to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from deporting Billuk to his native country of Guam. The district court dismissed the action stating that Perez lacked standing, and that she failed to establish her status as Billuk’s “next friend” because she offered no explanation as to why Billuk was unable to file on his own behalf. Billuk now appeals. However, because Billuk was not a party to or an intervenor in the proceeding filed by Perez, he lacks standing to challenge the decision on appeal. Davis v. Scott, 176 F.3d 805, 807 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that a prisoner lacked standing to appeal the district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition filed by his wife, acting “on behalf of” her husband). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 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
III 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 105 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2014 

Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Prohibiting the President from deploying or maintaining 

United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role 

in Iraq without specific, subsequent statutory authorization. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION REGARDING UNITED STATES 

4 ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ. 

5 The President shall not deploy or maintain United 

6 States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq 

7 without specific statutory authorization for such use 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 105 RFS 

1 enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent 

2 resolution. 

3 SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

4 Nothing in this concurrent resolution supersedes the 

5 requirements of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 

6 1541 et seq.). 

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 445 

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2012, as ‘‘Silver Star 

Service Banner Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2012, 

as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

Whereas the Senate has always honored the sacrifices made 

by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the Armed Forces and veterans 

who were wounded or became ill in combat in the wars 

fought by the United States; 

Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to 

help the American people remember the sacrifices made 

by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces by 

designing and manufacturing Silver Star Service Banners 

and Silver Star Flags for that purpose; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 445 ATS 

Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of 

America is to evoke memories of the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces on behalf of the 

United States through the presence of a Silver Star Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying; 

Whereas the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed 

Forces on behalf of the United States should never be 

forgotten; and 

Whereas May 1, 2012, is an appropriate date to designate as 

‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation 

2 of May 1, 2012, as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’ and 

3 calls upon the people of the United States to observe the 

4 day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS REQUIREDBY**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Steinway MusicalInstruments, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal period ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Dana D. Messina, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Dana D. Messina                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |

 

 

November 5, 2010

 

----
Samuel J. YARBER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9344

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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