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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5118 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Aluminum tris (Oethylphosphonate). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2008 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Aluminum 

tris (O-ethylphosphonate). 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALUMINUM TRIS (O-ETHYLPHOSPHONATE). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.73 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate)) is amended by strik7 ing the date in the effective period column and inserting 

8 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5118 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




C. J. QUEENAN, jr.

HENRY W. QLIVER BUILDING

535 SMITHFIELD STREET

PITTSBURGH, PA 15222-2312




	 	 	 
	queenan@kl.com

	 	(412) 355-6436
	 

	 	Fax: (412) 355.8307






August 4, 2005




Dear Robert:




     This letter is written to confirm that by reason of the action taken by the Personnel and
Compensation Committee on August 3, 2005, your “Base Salary” for all purposes of the Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement dated as of April 25, 2001, with Teledyne Technologies Incorporated
is $700,000 effective September 1, 2005.



Sincerely,








CJQir/djw




Dr. Robert Mehrabian
 5388
Baseline Avenue
 Santa Ynez, CA
93460-9346




25
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11230

Summary Calendar

 

GARY REED WALP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman, Texas Board

of Pardons and Paroles,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-2311-H

- - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Reed Walp, Texas prisoner #314299, requests permission

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He argues that the

district court erred by construing his pleading as one brought

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than as one brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Walp challenges the duration of his

sentence following the revocation of his parole, his challenge

properly sounds in habeas. Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th

Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 736 (1996). Accordingly, 
No. 97-11230

-2-

the district court did not err by construing Walp’s pleading as

one brought pursuant to § 2254, and Walp’s assertion to the

contrary is without merit. Because his appeal is without merit,

it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Walp’s motion for IFP is DENIED.

Walp is cautioned that future frivolous civil suits and

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition

of sanctions. Walp is cautioned further to review any pending

suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5551 

AN ACT 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to 

implement the increase provided under the District of 

Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008, in the amount of 

funds made available for the compensation of attorneys 

representing indigent defendants in the District of Columbia courts, and for other purposes. 
2 

•HR 5551 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF INCREASE PROVIDED IN 

4 FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION OF ATTOR5 NEYS REPRESENTING INDIGENT DEFEND6 ANTS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. 

7 (a) INCREASE IN HOURLY RATE.—Section 11– 

8 2604(a), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 

9 by striking ‘‘$65 per hour’’ and inserting ‘‘$80 per hour’’. 

10 (b) INCREASE IN CAPS ON TOTAL COMPENSATION

11 PAID FOR PARTICULAR CASES.—Section 11–2604(b), 

12 District of Columbia Official Code, is amended to read as 

13 follows: 

14 ‘‘(b) The compensation to be paid to an attorney ap15 pointed pursuant to this chapter shall not exceed the fol16 lowing maximum amounts: 

17 ‘‘(1) For representation of a defendant before 

18 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for 

19 misdemeanors or felonies, the maximum amount set 

20 forth in section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, United 

21 States Code, for representation of a defendant be22 fore the United States magistrate judge or the dis23 trict court for misdemeanors or felonies (as the case 

24 may be). 
3 

•HR 5551 EH

1 ‘‘(2) For representation of a defendant before 

2 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the max3 imum amount set forth in section 3006A(d)(2) of 

4 title 18, United States Code, for representation of a 

5 defendant in an appellate court. 

6 ‘‘(3) For representation of a defendant in post7 trial matters for misdemeanors or felonies, the 

8 amount applicable under paragraph (1) for mis9 demeanors or felonies (as the case may be).’’. 

10 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

12 respect to cases and proceedings initiated on or after the 

13 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 1, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5551 

AN ACT 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official 

courts, and for other purposes. gent defendants in the District of Columbia the compensation of attorneys representing indi2008, in the amount of funds made available for the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, Code, to implement the increase provided under
FLAHIVE v. RMA HOME SERVICES, INC.

No. COA05-1325.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Rowan (03CVS1564).

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE v. Torrance Capree MIMS.

No. 132P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of March 2006 by Defendant for Petition for Plain Error Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
In re J.W. A minor juvenile DOB: 05-09-00. In re K.W. A minor juvenile DOB: 06-13-97. appealed by Mother (Artemisia W.)

No. 592A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Peter Wood, for Mother (Artemisia W.).

Elizabeth Boone, for Guardian Ad Litem.

Jesse Jones, for Robert Winder.

Carlene Edwards, for Jason Wiggins.

E. Marshall Woodall, Lillington, for Harnett County DSS.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Respondent (Mother) on the 24th day of October 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GABRIEL KOTSIS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1920

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0432-16-0006-B-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Gabriel Kotsis filed an appeal at the Merit Systems 

Protection Board challenging his removal and raising, 

among other things, affirmative defenses of disability discrimination and reprisal for engaging in Equal Employment Opportunity activity. The Board’s final decision 

affirmed. Mr. Kotsis petitioned this court for review, and 

Case: 24-1920 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2024
2 KOTSIS v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

his filings indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his 

discrimination and retaliation claims. The agency moves 

to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and dismiss or transfer 

this matter. Mr. Kotsis has not filed a response to the motion. 

We transfer this case. Federal district courts, not this 

court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that a basis for the 

action was covered discrimination. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Here, Mr. Kotsis continues 

to pursue the allegations he made before the Board that his 

removal was the result of covered discrimination, so jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision lies in district court. 

We transfer to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Georgia, where the employment action 

appears to have occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted to the extent that the matter and 

all case filings are transferred to the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1631. 

August 21, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1920 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2024
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00501

- CV

BORAIN CAPITAL, LLC

, Appellant

v.

Syed HASHMI

, Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 11798

The Honora ble Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On September 13, 2016, the court reporter responsible for filing the reporter’s record in this appeal filed a notification of late record stating the reporter’s record ha d not been filed because appellant ha d failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On September 15, 2016, we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the r eporter’s fee ha d been paid or arrangements ha d been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. On September 19, 2019, appellant filed written proof in this court that the reporter’s fee had b een paid. It is therefore ORDERED that the reporter’s record be filed in this court no later than thirty days from the date of this order.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of September , 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Apollo Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”), I, James C. Zelter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory W. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|   |                                                                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | To my knowledge, 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 Company.

/s/ JAMES C. ZELTERJames C. ZelterChief Executive OfficerFebruary 6, 2017


/s/ GREGORY W. HUNTGregory W. HuntChief Financial Officer and TreasurerFebruary 6, 2017
STATE of North Carolina v. Fred Norris MARTIN, Jr.

No. 665P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Kelly D. Miller, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Fred Norris Martin, Jr.

Sueanna P. Sumpter, Assistant Attorney General, Jerry Wilson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of December 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
<page>


EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marketing Worldwide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending JUNE 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Marvin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
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 result of operations of the Company.

                                                      /s/ James Marvin
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      James Marvin
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                      Date: August 14, 2008
STATE v. CORNETT.

No. COA05-722.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Surry (02CRS5300).

Case without published opinion. No error.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15030]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 22-16]


Goforth & Marti dba GM Business Interiors, Complainant v. Hsin 
Silk Road Shipping Limited; Notice of Filing of Complaint and 
Assignment

Served: July 11, 2022.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by GOFORTH & MARTI dba GM BUSINESS 
INTERIORS, hereinafter ``Complainant'', against HSIN SILK ROAD SHIPPING 
LIMITED, hereinafter ``Respondent''. Complainant states that it is a 
California corporation. Complainant states that Respondent is an entity 
located in and organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, and 
that it is a non-vessel-common-carrier licensed by the Federal Maritime 
Commission.
    Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 
46 CFR 545.4 and 545.5 with regard to assessing fees against 
containers. The full text of the complaint can be found in the 
Commission's Electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/22-16/. This proceeding has been assigned to 
Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the 
presiding office in this proceeding shall be issued by July 12, 2023, 
and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by January 26, 
2024.

William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15030 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
STATE v. WEAVER

No. COA04-1277.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Gaston (03CRS63869, 03CRS63870).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
      E. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 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 operations of the Company.




*/s/
                  Edward E. Cohen*Edward
                  E. CohenChairman
                  of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerNovember
                  8, 2007
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM F. PITTMAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-728

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 19, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Neil A. Roddenbery, Judge. 

William F. Pittman, pro se.

 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 5.3   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The annual report 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.


|                                                    |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date:  May 13, 2013




/s/ André Gaumond           |  | 
|André Gaumond
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Section 1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ BRIAN FONTANABrian Fontana, Vice Presidentand Chief Financial OfficerMarch 7, 2008
|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Joseph D. Borgerding | Date: November 22, 2010 |
|--------|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|   | Joseph D. Borgerding     |                    |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  |                    |
Ronald MABEE and wife, Beverly Mabee v. ONSLOW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Ed Brown in his capacity as Sheriff of Onslow County, Kirk Newkirk in his capacity as a Deputy Sheriff for the County of Onslow, several unknown Deputy Sheriffs in their capacity as Deputy Sheriffs of the County of Onslow, Charles J. Roberts, in his individual capacity.

No. 643P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Jeffrey S. Miller, for Ronald & Beverly Mabee.

Mark A. Davis, Raleigh, for Onslow County Sheriff's Dept.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 30th day of November 2005 by Defendant (Onslow County Sheriff's Department, Ed Brown & Kirk Newkirk) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF ROSS 

TOWNSHIP

v.

ROSS TOWNSHIP AND THE CATHOLIC 

CEMETERIES ASSOCIATION OF THE 

DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH, INC.

PETITION OF: THE CATHOLIC 

CEMETERIES ASSOCIATION OF THE 

DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 293 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.