alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          34,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,005
<INVENTORY>                                     20,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,512
<PP&E>                                         189,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,566
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,513
<SALES>                                         83,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,994
<CGS>                                           57,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,768
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34


</TABLE>
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10955

Conference Calendar

 

JOHNIE WISE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

L.E. FLEMING, Warden, Federal Medical Center - Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-224-Y

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Johnie Wise, federal inmate #82281-079, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. A jury

convicted Wise of two counts of threatening to use a weapon of

mass destruction and aiding and abetting. United States v. Wise,

221 F.3d 140, 147 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court sentenced

Wise to concurrent terms of 292 months of imprisonment and five

years of supervised release. Id.
No. 03-10955

-2-

Wise asserts that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition satisfied

the criteria necessary to proceed under the “savings clause” of

28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that his petition raised a novel

issue concerning the Government’s alleged failure to establish

commercial injury. Wise asserts that commercial injury is an

essential element of the crime of conviction. He argues that

novel claims can never be procedurally barred and that 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because it does not offer a

remedy. He contends that the district court’s dismissal of his

petition amounts to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of

habeas corpus.

Wise has not met his burden of showing that the remedy

provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to

test the legality of his detention. Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary

Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,

537 U.S. 1241 (2003). He has not identified a retroactively

applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may

have been imprisoned for conduct that was not prohibited by law. 

He has not shown that his claims were foreclosed by circuit law

when the claims should have been raised, i.e., at his trial, on

appeal, or in an initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Wesson, 305

F.3d at 347.

We have rejected previously Wise’s Suspension Clause

argument. See id. at 346-47. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 15

- 1712 ( CKK )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Presentation of Ultimate Evidence,” ECF

No. 16, which is construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b) . Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final j udgment for one of

five specific grounds, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)

- (5), none of which apply in this case, or for

“any other reason that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)

should be granted only if the moving party demonstrates “‘extraordinary circumstances’

justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia
, 633 F.3d 1110, 1116 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby
, 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005));

see Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris
, 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (noting that

“this form of relief should only be sparingly used”).

P laintiff has been entitled to receive widow’s insurance benefits under Title II of the

Social Security Act since May 2006 on the record of her deceased husband, Eugenio Navarro.

Brief in Support of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 9, Nicoll Decl. ¶ 3(a) . In

Susana B. Navarro
, :

: Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: Commissioner of Social Security, :

: Defendant. :March 2009, defendant notified plaintiff that the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) would

deduct Federal in come taxes from her widow’s insurance benefits. Nicoll Decl. ¶ 3(b). P l aintiff

sought reconsideration, but the “information [she] submitted did not provide a basis to stop such

deductions.” Id . SSA advised that it would “ stop deductin g the tax ” i f plaintiff could

demonstrate either that she become a United States citizen, or that she live s in the United States,

Canada, Egypt, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Romania, Switzerland or the United

Kingdom. Id ., Ex. 3 (Notice of Change in Benefits dated September 19, 2013) at 1.

The Court dismissed this case because plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative

remedies as 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requires before filing her complaint . Plaintiff has attached

exhibits to her motion presumably for the p urpose of demonstrating that her late husband was a

United States citizen . Mr. Navarro’s citizenship is irrelevant, however, to the issue of exhaustion

of administrative remedies. Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary

circumstance to warrant the relief she demands, the Court denies her motion for relief from

judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment [ 1 6] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: Dec ember 5 , 201 7 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR KOTELLY United States District Court Judge
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 of PCMT Corporation (the "Company")
        on Form
        10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nachman Shlomo
        Kohen,
        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, to
 the
        best
        of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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 the operation of the
        Company.
 
 Date: May
                24,
                2007
              By:
              /s/ Nachman
                Shlomo KohenNachman
                Shlomo Kohen,Chief
                Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
                Officer
  This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of ss.18 of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not
        be
        incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
        as
        amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
        (whether
 made
        before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
        incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by ss.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.
#### Abenaboli *v.*City of Cleveland.

(No. 23745

Decided October 13, 1932.)

*Mr. Milton Firestone*and *Mr. Ben H. Zwick,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. George Kerr,*director of law, *Mr. Frank M. Surtg*and *Mr. M. Keith Wilson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Day, Allen and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Kjnkade, J., not participating.
#### Chicago, Peoria and St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Joseph Bourne.

1. *Railroads—Duty to Keep Fences in*Repair.—It is the duty of a railroad company to keep its fences in repair, and abutting land owners have a right to assume that it will do so.

Statutory Action, for killing of stock by railroad. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan County; the Hon. Owen P. Thompson, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1902.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 1, 1902.

L. 0. Vaught, attorney for appellant; Blueord Wilson and Philip Barton Warren, of counsel.

Robert Tilton, attorney for appellee.

Mr. J ustioe Burroughs

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace of Morgan county by the appellee against the appellant, to recover damages and attorney fees under the statute for seventeen hogs killed by the trains of the appellant while on the tracks, where they had strayed through an insufficient fence between his pasture and its right of way.

The case was first tried before the justice and afterward by jury in the Circuit Court, where it resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellee for $112 damages and $35 attorney fees. *>*

The appellant moved for a new trial, which being denied, it excepted, and prosecutes this appeal, arguing for error that the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence.

*28It appears that a number of years ago the railway company placed a fence on a line dividing its right of way from appellee’s pastures, and on account of its age and the neglect of appellant to repair it throughout its length, it had become so rotten in places that the hogs in question .strayed from appellee’s pasture through the fence upon the right of way of the appellant and were killed by the passing trains of the appellant.

After some of the hogs had been killed the appellee requested the appellant to repair the fence, and it did fix a part, but not all of it along appellee’s pasture.

It is contended that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence in permitting his hogs to remain in his pasture after he discovered the fence was insufficient to keep them off the railroad right of way. But we can not concur in that view, for the railway company had a fence on the line, and the appellee had the right to have his stock in his pasture, putting the risk of loss by neglect to repair and keep the fence sufficient, upon the railway company, on which the statute imposes that duty; and the “ mere leaving them there is not negligence nor evidence of-negligence on his part, which a jury should be allowed t'o consider. The law should not, and does not, in our opinion, oust him, nor permit a jury to oust him, of the valuable use of his own land for that cause, in such a case.” Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. McCord, 56 Ill. App. 173.

The evidence warranted the verdict and judgment, and the latter is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000076063
<NAME> PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    99000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      23000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                259000
<PP&E>                                         1640000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   67000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2615000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           138000
<BONDS>                                        1193000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1000
<OTHER-SE>                                     1129000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2615000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                136000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    44000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 22000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               19000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  70000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     20000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              32000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     32000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 614 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 614

   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of 
  Minnesota the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

  Mr. Minge introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of 
  Minnesota the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY PRODUCTION 
              FACILITY.

    (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law and within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State of Minnesota 
without reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the property comprising the New London National Fish 
Hatchery production facility, located outside of downtown New London, 
Minnesota, including--
            (1) all easements and water rights relating to that 
        property, and
            (2) all land, improvements, and related personal property 
        comprising that production facility.
    (b) Use of Property.--All property and interests conveyed under 
this section shall be used by the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources for the Minnesota fishery resources management program.
    (c) Reversionary Interest.--All right, title, and interest in and 
to all property and interests conveyed under this section shall revert 
to the United States on any date on which any of the property or 
interests are used other than for the Minnesota fishery resources 
management program.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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



|I, Anderson L. McCabe as CEO and CFO of Opt-Sciences Corporation, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                   
|(1)                                                                                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                                                                   
|(2)                                                                                                                                                                                



|Opt-Sciences Corporation                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|/s/ Anderson L. McCabe                                                         
|Anderson L. McCabeChief Executive Officer &Chief Financial OfficerJune 15, 2015
|
#### Maud Hert, appellant, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellee.

17 N. W. 2d 471

Filed February 2, 1945.

No. 31829.

*Russell C. Anderson*and *Clinton Brome,*for appellant.

*Gray & Brumbaugh, contra.*

Heard before Simmons, C. J., Paine, Carter, Messmore, Yeager, Chappell and Wenke, JJ.

Chappell, J.

The material facts and applicable law in this case are identical in every respect with that in *Cutrell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.,*No. 31828, *ante,*p. 550, 17 N. W. *5592d 465, and the decision herein is governed thereby. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-8705-6] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), EPA gives notice of cancellation of a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMIP) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). 

      ( print page 48211)    

# DATES:

The cancelled meeting was scheduled to be held on Tuesday, August 19, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, August 20, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, August 21, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Omni Corpus Christi Hotel-Marina Tower, 707 North Shoreline Boulevard, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gloria D. Car, Designated Federal Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Mail Code EPA/GMPO, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000 at (228) 688-2421. 

Dated: August 11, 2008. 

Gloria D. Car, 

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-18978 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M