alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



     Dated: May 14, 2007

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Company Pyramid Oil (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




     Date: May 14, 2007

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 07-cv-10-PB

Davenport Realty Trust, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya B.

McCafferty dated June 2, 2010, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set forth therein. The

plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (document number 59) is granted. Judgment is entered in

the amount of $8,272,224.83 in favor of the United States for all unrecovered response costs in

connections with the Beede Waster Oil Superfund Site, plus interest in the amount accruing from

the date of entry of this default judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1961.

SO ORDERED.

June 23, 2010 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00010-PB Document 61 Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Wolfe

v. 07-cv-321-PB

NH State Prison

O R D E R

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead, is

designated to review the request for injunctive relief submitted by Plaintiff Charles Wolfe and, if

necessary, conduct any hearing that may be set.

In accordance with subparagraph (C), the Magistrate Judge shall file his proposed findings

and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the Court, and a copy shall forthwith be mailed

to all parties.

SO ORDERED.

July 6, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Charles Wolfe, Pro Se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 39 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James B. Currier

v. Civil No. 06-cv-328-PB

Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated March 5, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

March 30, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: James B. Currier, pro se

John A. Curran, Esq.

Carolyn M. Kirby, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00328-PB Document 24 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 1
1

The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1676

___________

George Poole, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Chris Cassaday; Michael Bolin; City of *

Cool Valley; Gregory Bolin, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 2, 2007

Filed: November 14, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George Poole appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his civil rights action. Upon careful review of the record, see Lawyer v. City of

Council Bluffs, 361 F.3d 1099, 1103 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned opinion, see 8th Cir. R.

47B. 

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22266]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-1194-001]


Castlebridge Energy Group LLC; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 11, 2008, Castlebridge Energy Group 
LLC filed an amendment to its Determination of Category 1 Seller Status 
filing, submitted to the Commission on August 13, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92d4d7c0d1ddfcfefbfcf7c1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c98f8c9b8a86a7a5a0a7ac9abcb9b9a6bbbd89afacbbaae7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22266 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1732 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1732

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to review the annual 
            reports of accounting standards-setting bodies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

 Mr. Sherman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to review the annual 
            reports of accounting standards-setting bodies.

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORTS REQUIRED.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission shall annually review the 
annual reports of any independent accounting standards-setting entity 
on whose standards issuers of securities and other regulated persons 
are permitted to rely for purposes of complying with generally accepted 
accounting principles in the preparation of periodic reports and other 
statements required to be submitted under the Federal securities laws.
                                 <all>
```
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1992...... 100.0 76.2 18.8 3.9 .8 .2 .0

1993...... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

1994: Q2... 100.0 80.9 16.2 2.4 .4 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 83.5 13.7 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995: Q1... 100.0 81.6 15.3 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 82.0 15.0 2.6 .2 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.8 14.3 2.4 .3 .0 .1

 Q4... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. FRANK E. SPAULDING, a/k/a Khalif Immanuel Bey, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1)

Submitted: April 13, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank E. Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Frank E. Spaulding, also known as Khalif Immanuel Bey, appeals his jury conviction and eighteen-month sentence for theft of public property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006), and making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006). Spaulding, proceeding pro se, raises several claims that he contends require that his conviction be vacated, including that: (i) as an “Aboriginal, Indigenous and Freehold Inhabitant and Moorish-American National,” the district court lacked jurisdiction over him; (ii) the district court unlawfully referred to him by his birth name during the proceedings; (iii) the investigator who testified at his trial perjured himself; (iv) the “authorized representative” never entered a plea at Spaulding’s arraignment; and (v) the Government slandered him when it gave information to a local newspaper that incorrectly stated the value of the property he

stole. We have considered Spaulding’s arguments and have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Spaulding , No. 2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

23 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
1Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-10962

Summary Calendar

VANESSA CLEMONS

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES, ET AL

Defendants, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES

 Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-695-E)

January 23, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Clemons appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her claim

against her employer, Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
 

2She appealed her dismissal through administrative procedures

with her employer which resulted in her reinstatement without loss

of pay or seniority.

2

Services, that her dismissal was racially motivated.2 She brought

her claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district

court ruled that Appellant had not created an issue of fact that

her dismissal was race related. Our review of the briefs and

record convince us that the district court did not err.

Even though we view the evidence and its reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to Appellant, she has

created no issue of fact as to her prima facie case. Her dismissal

was based on an alleged violation of work rules. Appellant admits

that she did violate the rules and produces no evidence sufficient

to create a fact issue that white employees who violated work rules

were treated differently than she.

As an alternative to creating a prima facie case as to the

termination itself, Appellant argues that prior disciplinary

actions against her were the result of discriminatory action and

intent by her prior supervisor. That supervisor, however, had no

voice in Appellant’s termination so this would normally be

irrelevant. However those prior actions were considered in the

termination so their motivation could be germane. While Appellant

argues that in these prior incidents she was treated differently

than whites, she offers no credible and probative evidence of this.

AFFIRMED. 
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DRE’SHAUN E. BURNS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR120

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [34]. 

Counsel needs additional time to conduct plea negotiations. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [34] is granted, as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for February 12, 2024, is continued to April 22, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s 

date and April 22, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to 

grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: January 29, 2024.

 BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00120-RFR-MDN Doc # 35 Filed: 01/29/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 55
#### STATE ex rel. Dewey J. SANCHEZ, District Attorney, et al. v. Edgar B. ALLEN.

No. 2302.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Jos. A. Loret, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

D. J. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

OTT, Judge.

*For*the reasons assigned in the case of State ex rel. Dewey J. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., et al. v. Millard W. Dixon, 4 So.2d 591, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed at the cost of appellant in both courts.

DORE, J., concurs.

LE BLANC, Judge

(dissenting).

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion filed by me in the case of State ex rel. Sanchez v. Millard W. Dixon, 4 So.2d 591, I respectfully dissent '.from the decree handed down in the majority opinion herein.
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0015

IN THE MATTER OF 

S.C., 

A Youth in Need of Care

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant, K.B., is granted an extension of 

time until April 25, 2022 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 25 2022

02/25/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0015
1 

. 

‘.., / 

:. 

: 
. 

: , .‘. :.” 

,, ‘. _ .’ 

, 

. ..I_ il 
:, 

: .q. I ;r..:.: :‘, 

2. :..I .‘:,.‘T: 

ltaight htwe~.xmen p&da: wherea in the Cat&q Club oaae. 

the AdJutant'OaneraL had m authorlty.to enter Into the eontraot there tivolwd ao?: rae.thsicl ~an.av&able appmprIatlon 

out cd rhldh they ml&t hale bee&paid. : ; '. i 

: 
:,; . .._. 

8 x:. .- 

. . ‘. 

1. &morab&s O.-f. 8:,3i&l&on~~~go 4 

.“’ ..:..,.._. 

. : . ..::. i.. 

‘. . . ! “’ : Y ..: 

: ,.<.. 

s. Sutton lCat.ate the rental oithi lad omml by it&d 

famed bjrths.%uam Prison Syatm.%.rl934, under.the olr-... .y -. 

~*ix=atimoea aw4eeorlbed above. . . . ,. 

.i . . . 

. AkMl

OoMY

0 BY& 

. . ..- .’
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EFREN SAENZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00014

- CR

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC # 20160D03471 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2018

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-60-PB

Howard Fosher, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the September 6, 2005

trial in the above case, citing complicating factors of medical

treatment required for his cancer and the need for additional

time to prepare for trial. The government and co-defendant

Timothy Doyon do not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 6, 2005 until November 1, 2005. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00060-PB Document 19 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The August 23,final pretrial conference is continued until

October 27, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 11, 2005

cc: Adam Bernstein, Esq.

Joseph Caufield, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00060-PB Document 19 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2