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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5426 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

finalize a proposed rule to amend the spill prevention, control, and 

countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline the requirements for the 

dairy industry, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2010 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan (for herself, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. 

CONAWAY, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Ms. 

JENKINS, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, and Mr. NEUGEBAUER) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize a proposed rule to amend the 

spill prevention, control, and countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline the requirements for the dairy industry, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

6 Environmental Protection Agency shall finalize the proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:57 May 28, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5426.IH H5426

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5426 IH

1 posed rule as published in the Federal Register on Janu2 ary 15, 2009, beginning on page 2461 of volume 74, enti3 tled ‘‘Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, 

4 and Countermeasure Rule Requirements—Amendments’’ 

5 to exempt certain milk containers and associated piping 

6 and appurtenance from the Spill Prevention, Control, and 

7 Countermeasure program. 

8 (b) FORBEARANCE.—Until the effective date of the 

9 rule finalized under subsection (a), the Administrator of 

10 the Environmental Protection Agency may not take regu11 latory action against dairy and dairy product producers, 

12 processors, handlers, and distributors under the oil pollu13 tion prevention regulation in part 112 of title 40, Code 

14 of Federal Regulations, related to the exemptions in such 

15 proposed rule. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
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  on Form  10-Q of  American  Express
Certificate Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  Paula R. Meyer,  as Chief Executive  Officer of the Company and
Brian J.  McGrane,  as Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  each  hereby
certifies,  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 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/ Paula R. Meyer
   ---------------------
Name:  Paula R. Meyer
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 10, 2004



   /s/ Brian J. McGrane
   ---------------------
Name:  Brian J. McGrane
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  November 10, 2004


The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  and is not  being  "filed"  as part  of the  Form  10-Q or as a  separate
disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange  Act"), or otherwise  subject to liability under
that  section.  This  certification  shall not be deemed to be  incorporated  by
reference into any filing under the  Securities Act of 1933, as amended,  or the
Exchange  Act except to the  extent  that this  Exhibit  32.1 is  expressly  and
specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                        DI INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE
                  (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                                        Nine
                                    Year Ended     Year Ended      Months Ended
                                   December 31,    December 31,    December 31,
                                        1996           1995            1994
                                      --------       --------         -----

Weighted average shares of common
     stock outstanding                 67,495         38,669          38,641

Stock options (treasury stock method)      -              -               -
                                      ---------      --------           -----

Weighted average shares for primary 
     loss per share calculation        67,495         38,669           38,641

Stock options (treasury stock method)       -             -                -
                                     ----------     -----------         -----

Weighted average shares for fully 
     diluted loss per share 
     calculation                       67,495         38,669           38,641
                                     ==========     ==========      =========

Net loss applicable to common 
     stock                         $  (12,124)      $(13,447)      $  (2,209)
                                     ==========     ===========     ==========

Loss per share:

   Primary                         $     (.18)      $   (.35)      $    (.06)
                                     ==========      =========       ========

   Fully diluted                   $     (.18)      $   (.35)      $    (.06)
                                     ==========      =========       ========

Note:Reference is made to Note 1 to Consolidated Financial Statements regarding
computation of per share amounts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,184
<PP&E>                                         306,637
<DEPRECIATION>                               (198,421)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,107
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,196
<SALES>                                         73,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,767
<CGS>                                           65,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                82,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (83,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,069)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (77,251)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (77,251)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 $ (5.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 $ (5.50)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00371

- CV

Joseph HARRIS and All Other Occupants of

3527 Cameron Springs, San Antonio, Texas 78244,

Appellants

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV03915

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee, Bank of America, N.A., recover its costs of this

appeal from appellants, Joseph Harris and All O ther Occupants of 3527 Cameron Springs, San

Antonio, Texas 78244.

SIGNED November 10, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
##### 



Exhibit 4(c)
 ASSIGNMENT OF
NET OVERRIDING ROYALTY INTEREST  (SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST)
 STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    
    
    ))
    
    
    ss,COUNTIES OF SAN JUAN,
    
    
    )RIO ARRIBA AND SANDOVAL
    
    
    )
  Assignment ) Bank One, N.A., (Bank One), TexasBank ( TexasBank ).
 RECITALS
  Indenture ),
  Conveyance ). Schedule 1.
   ASSIGNMENT
   1




---



##### 



ATTEST:
    
    
    
    BANK ONE, N.A./s/
[ILLEGIBLE]
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonATTEST:
    
    
    
    TEXASBANK/s/
Mary Beth Smith
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
 THE STATE OF TEXAS
    
    
    ))COUNTY OF TARRANT
    
    
    )
   /s/ Kelly PurcellNotary Public in and for Tarrant Country, Texas
 My commission Expires:
5/14/05
    
    (STAMP)
 2




---



##### 



THE STATE OF TEXAS
    
    
    ))COUNTY OF TARRANT
    
    
    )
   /s/ Kelly PurcellNotary Public in and for Tarrant County, Texas
 
 This instrument prepared by:
J. Scott Hall 
Miller, Stratvert & Torgerson, P.A.
150 Washington Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(505) 989-9614
    
    (STAMP)
 3




---



##### 



SCHEDULE 1
  Jurisdiction
    
    Book & Page
    
    Recording DateSan Juan County, New Mexico
    
    
    893/236
    
    
    November 21, 1980Rio Arriba County, New Mexico
    
    
    91/179
    
    
    November 12, 1980Sandoval County, New Mexico
    
    
    128/303
    
    
    November 11, 1980
 Schedule-1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5450 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5450

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Tom Bradley 
                         Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TOM BRADLEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Tom Bradley Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom 
Bradley Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                              57
<SECURITIES>                                       125
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1580
<ALLOWANCES>                                        32
<INVENTORY>                                        494
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                            1651
<DEPRECIATION>                                     874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                           2146
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           786
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2179)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3505
<SALES>                                           1652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1703
<CGS>                                             1440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    45
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     31
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 22
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        22
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The company has adopted an unclassified presentation in the Statement of
Financial Condition.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23



LOGO

February 29, 2016

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

Compass Bank, Trustee

2200 Post Oak Blvd., Floor 19

Houston, Texas 77056

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Cawley, Gillespie &
Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual
Report for the year ended December 31, 2015 based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and dated February 29, 2016.

Sincerely,



LOGO

CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                               Grey Wolf, Inc.
                             List of Subsidiaries


                                        State or Jurisdiction of Formation
                                        ----------------------------------

Grey Wolf Drilling Company L.P.                      Texas
Grey Wolf LLC                                        Louisiana
Grey Wolf Holdings Company                           Nevada
Murco Drilling Corp.                                 Delaware
Grey Wolf International, Inc.                        Texas
Grey Wolf Drilling International, Ltd.               Cayman Islands
Grey Wolf Drilling de Venezuela                      Venezuela
Drillers Inc., DI de Venezuela                       Venezuela
Grey Wolf Drilling de Mexico SRL de C.V.             Mexico SRL
DI/Perfensa, Inc.                                    Texas
Perforaciones Andinas, S.A.                          Panama
DI Energy, Inc.                                      Texas
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bruce L. Wishnefsky, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 476 C.D. 2020

:

Pennsylvania Department of :

Corrections, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, March 25, 2021

, having considered Petitioner’s application for

reargument, the application is denied.
Exhibit 32





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 on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif , as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Janet C. Langner , as Principal and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 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.







Date: May 3, 2017By/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 3, 2017By/s/ Janet C. LangnerJanet C. LangnerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)











E-4
#### Robert E. GERKIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D.K. BUTLER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-55135.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 10, 2005.

*773Robert E. Gerkin, Folsom State Prison, Represa, CA, pro se.

Seth K. Schalit, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert E. Ger-kin appeals *pro se*the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Gerkin contends that there was improper communication with members of the jury, and that he was thereby deprived of a fair trial. The state trial court considered the allegations and concluded, assuming that they were true, that Gerkin failed to demonstrate prejudice. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the state court’s resolution of this case was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See Rushen v. Spain,*464 U.S. 114, 118-19, 104 S.Ct. 453, 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983); *Mancuso v. Olivarez,*292 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the district court properly denied this claim.

Gerkin further contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney: (1) failed to investigate and correct the alleged improper communication with the jury; and (2) failed to investigate and exclude the government’s expert on Battered Women’s Syndrome. Even assuming that counsel’s performance was deficient, Gerkin ' has failed to show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unpro*774fessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The district court therefore properly denied this claim.

Gerkin’s remaining arguments are outside the scope of the Certifícate of Appeal-ability, and, to the extent that the arguments can be construed as a motion to broaden, we deny the motion. *See*'28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* 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. 99-40746

(Summary Calendar)

 

FREDDY L. WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAPTIST HOSPITAL-ORANGE TEXAS; TERRY

WILLIAMS, Director of Support Services;

BUDDY BROWN, Head of Department of 

Maintenance; MIKE DANIELS, Supervisor of

Engineering,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CV-662)

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

July 12, 2000

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Freddy L. Walker appeals from the district

court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his action against

Defendants-Appellees. In connection with his appeal, Walker has

filed a motion with this court for leave to file an offer of

settlement of claims. We deny his motion and affirm the judgment

of the district court.
2

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

After being fired from his maintenance job by Baptist

Hospital, Orange, Walker sued the hospital and the other

Defendants-Appellees, claiming racial discrimination in his firing

as well as false imprisonment and defamation. He was fired

immediately after being charged with stealing food from the

hospital cafeteria. Walker insists, however, that he was fired

because of an altercation he had had with the cafeteria supervisor

several weeks earlier, after which he had refused to sign a writeup. He also alleges that he was set up by a cafeteria worker who,

like Walker, is black, when that worker gave him permission to take

the subject food item then denied it. Walker avers that this

particular cafeteria worker had a pattern of setting up her fellow

black co-workers for termination. 

The district court dismissed Walker’s claims of false

imprisonment and defamation as time barred. Its grant of summary

judgment dismissing the racial discrimination claim was grounded in

Walker’s failure to establish a prima facie case and, in the

alternative, on the absence of proof of any racial component in the

bases that Walker asserts as the hospital’s real reasons for firing

him. 

II.

ANALYSIS

We have carefully considered the operable facts and applicable

law in this case as reflected in the record on appeal, the briefs
3

filed by the parties, and the Amended Memorandum Opinion of the

district court. As a result, we are convinced that the district

court committed no reversible error in granting summary judgment

and, indeed, correctly granted that judgment dismissing Walker’s

claims for the right reason. Even though our review is de novo, we

conclude that nothing would be gained by writing separately. We

therefore affirm the judgment and all rulings of the district court

for the reasons set forth in the thorough and craftsmanlike opinion

of that court. We also deny all pending motions, including without

limitation Walker’s motion for leave to file a motion for offer of

settlement.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.