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

          - [Docket # EPA-RO4-SFUND-2010-0729, FRL-9196-1]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice of settlement.

# SUMMARY:

Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response costs concerning the Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Superfund Site located in Davie, Broward County, Florida for publication.

# DATES:

The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until October 1, 2010. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

# ADDRESSES:

Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2010-0729 or Site name Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
      -  http://www.regulations.gov:                          Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.                    
      - http://www.epa.gov/​region4/​waste/​sf/​enforce.htm.
      - Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887.

Dated: August 18, 2010.

Anita L. Davis,

Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-21834 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7701

JACOB MUHAMMAD FARRAKHAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD MOATS, Warden; MUHAMMAD SALAAM, Islamic

Chaplain; CAPTAIN HARNE; RICHARD LANHAM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

1081-AM)

Submitted: January 6, 1998 Decided: March 17, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob Muhammad Farrakhan, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Richard M. Kastendieck,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* See City of Boerne v. Flores, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4612

(U.S. June 25, 1997) (No. 95-2074).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jacob Muhammad Farrakhan, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)

complaint. Farrakhan's claim that the confiscation of his religious

cassette tape violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is

moot in light of the Supreme Court's finding that the Act is unconstitutional.* We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinions granting summary judgment on Farrakhan's remaining claims

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Farrakhan v. Moats, No. CA-95-1081-AM

(D. Md. Dec. 22, 1995 and Oct. 1, 1996). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Cole National Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 2, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officer's knowledge:

         (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 as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.


Date: May 16, 2003
                                          /s/ Jeffrey A. Cole
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Jeffrey A. Cole
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ Lawrence E. Hyatt
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Lawrence E. Hyatt
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer



         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
News United States Air Force
 A message to the force: Trust and characterPublished March 17, 2017
                        
                        By United States Air Force
                
                
A message from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Kaleth O. Wright.
"Our Air Force core values don’t just apply to the battlefield, they apply to our everyday lives. The effect of behaviors that target our sisters-and-brothers-in-arms whether personally, professionally, physically, mentally or emotionally is catastrophic, and breaks down the fabric of who we are as Airmen."SAF 



CSAF 



CMSAF 



trust 



character
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)   Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Tanzanian Royalty Exploration Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Form 20-F) that, to the best of their knowledge:  (1) the Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: October 30, 2014    James E. SinclairJames E. Sinclair,
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Steven Van TongerenSteven Van Tongeren
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

y0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

143946

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143946 COA: 305078 Saginaw CC: 85-006602-FH FELTON WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2011 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MORRIS RANECO HAYDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:09-cr-00499-CMC-1; 0:12-cv-01953-CMC)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris Raneco Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth 

Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Morris Raneco Hayden seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hayden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Nayna Networks, Inc., on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Michael Meyer,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 19, 2005                   /s/ Michael Meyer
                                        --------------------------------
                                            Michael Meyer
                                            Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID WENNER

September 17, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 14268 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE ST- OF MONTANA 1978

MARION C. MXLUFGand LOIS K. MSLURG, husbard andwife, PlaintiffsandAppellants,

FZATHEADCOUNTY ~ISSIONERS, and CLIFFORD VINJE, Ibad Supervisor, Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal frm: DistrictCourt of theEleventhJudicial District, Homrable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counselof Record: For Appellants: M. KeithWClurg argued, Big Fork, Montana For Respondents: Patrick Springer, CountyAttorney, Kalispell, mntana LeonardA. Vadala argued, Deputy CountyAttorney, Kalispell,

Wntana

Sulmnitted: October 20, 1978


# --.. -i Filed: iJC!Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the District Court, Flathead County, setting aside a default entered in their favor by the clerk of said court. Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking permission to barricade a road running through a corner of a parcel of land owned by them. They alleged that the road was an inconvenience to them in that automobiles often became stuck on a steep incline in the winter and put them to time and expense extricatingmotorists with their tractor. Since there was another route existing by which cars could reach the same destinations, plaintiffs wanted to erect signs indicating that the road on their land was a deadend private drive. The Flathead County Commissioners,named as defendants in the action, failed to file a responsivepleading within the time limits provided by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffshad the clerk of court enter defendants' default pursuant to Rule 55(a), M.R.Civ.P. Before default judgment had been entered, however, the county commissioners filed a motion to set aside their default. The District Court granted this motion. Plaintiffs appeal. The right of appeal exists only by statute or rule. Payne
v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1963), 142Mont. 406, 385 P.2d 100. There is no statute or rule authorizing appeal from an order setting aside entry of default before judgment is taken. Rule l(a), M.R.App.Civ.P. provides that an appealmay be taken from a final judgment entered in an action commenced in a District Court. As a general rule, an order setting aside an entry of default where judgment has not been entered is not such
a final order and is, therefore, not appealable. Annot. 8ALR3d1272, 1278; 4 Am Jur 2d Appeal and Error 5127. Entry of default ismerely "an interlocutory act looking toward the subsequent entry of a finaljudgment by default and ismore inthenature of a formal matter." Whaley v. Rhodes (1970), 10N.C.App. 109, 177 S.E.2d 735, 736, citing 6 Moore's Federal Practice 1155.10[1], at1827 (2d ed. 1966), construing Rule 55(a),F.R.Civ.P., which is identical tothecorresponding Montana rule. We have expresslyheld that an order setting aside a default isnot appealable where finaljudgment has not been entered. Blevins v. Kramer Mont

# . (19781, I-P.2d 35 St.Rep. 

## , (decided December 5, 1978. Appeal dismissed.

Chief Justice We concur:
#### PARRISH v. HAYWORTH

No. 355P00

Case below: 138 N.C. App. 637

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 February 2001.
----

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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/ PETER DE VISSER |   |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | Name:   Peter de Visser                         |   |   |
|   |   | Title:     Chief Financial Officer    |   |   |
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2348 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive coinsurance under 

Medicare for colorectal cancer screening tests, regardless of whether 

therapeutic intervention is required during the screening. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2014 

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive 

coinsurance under Medicare for colorectal cancer screening tests, regardless of whether therapeutic intervention 

is required during the screening. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Barriers to 

5 Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2348 IS

1 (1) Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause 

2 of cancer death among men and women in the 

3 United States, killing more non-smokers than any 

4 other cancer. 

5 (2) Every year, approximately 140,000 Ameri6 cans are diagnosed with colorectal cancer and more 

7 than 50,000 Americans will die from it. 

8 (3) Approximately 60 percent of colorectal can9 cer cases and 70 percent of deaths occur in those 

10 aged 65 and older. 

11 (4) Colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy al12 lows for the detection and removal of polyps, or ab13 normal growths, that could become cancerous, as 

14 well as for the early detection of colorectal cancer 

15 when treatment can be most effective. 

16 (5) Although colorectal cancer is largely pre17 ventable, one in three adults between the rec18 ommended screening ages of 50 and 75 are not up 

19 to date with colorectal cancer screening. 

20 (6) Dozens of organizations have committed to 

21 eliminating colorectal cancer as a major public 

22 health problem and are working toward the shared 

23 goal of reaching 80 percent screened for colorectal 

24 cancer by 2018. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2348 IS

1 (7) Colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy is a 

2 highly effective preventive service, and removing fi3 nancial barriers can help to increase screening rates. 

4 SEC. 3. WAIVING MEDICARE COINSURANCE FOR 

5 COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING TESTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(a)(1)(Y) of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(Y)) is amended 

8 by inserting ‘‘, including a colorectal cancer screening test 

9 (regardless of the code that is billed for the establishment 

10 of a diagnosis as a result of the test, or for the removal 

11 of tissue or other procedure that is furnished in connection 

12 with, as a result of, and in the same clinical encounter 

13 as the screening test),’’ after ‘‘section 1861(ddd)(3)’’. 

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

15 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
M A N D A T E

TO THE PROBATE COURT NO 2 OF EL PASO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on 5/14/15, the cause upon appeal

to revise or reverse your judgment between

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF FRANCIS J.

SIMMONS, AN INCAPACITATED

PERSON,

No. 08-13-00269-CV

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

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. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of

Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized,

obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

El Paso, this November 6, 2015.

Denise Pacheco, Clerk

Trial Court No. 2013CGD01489

FILE COPY
| (1) | The      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 Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      July 28, 2008                                          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                              |   |
|                                                              |   |
| /s/ Charles E. Leibold                                            |   |
| Charles      E. Leibold                                           |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer andPrincipal      Accounting Officer |   |
OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. 10-K




Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10K for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof )the “Report”), I, SamBackenroth, Chief Financial 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.








Dated: January 13, 2011








/s/ Sam Backenroth


Name:  Sam Backenroth


Title:  Interim Chief Financial Officer