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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLWY920000 L14300000.EU0000; WYW 167526]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice corrects the date that the Bureau of Land Management will open sealed bids for this public land sale. The original notice, which was published on Tuesday November 18, 2014, (79 FR 68693), incorrectly stated the date. On page 68693, column 3, line 9 under                         **DATES**                        , which reads “January 20, 2015”, is hereby corrected to read “January 21, 2015.”                    

Mary Jo Rugwell,

Acting Wyoming State Director.

[FR Doc. 2014-30059 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




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), the undersigned
      officer of Mandalay Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 of the
      Company (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      November 14, 2008




/s/
                Jay A. WolfJay
                A. WolfChief
                Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
                Financial Officer)





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 shall be furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudolfo Ray TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51356

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*426Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rudolfo Ray Torres has filed a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Torres has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE KEOKI CALLEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0068-CG-C

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL NO. 06-00176-CG

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the instant motion to vacate (Doc. 857) be summarily 

dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Alternatively, Callen’s 

motion is due to be summarily dismissed with prejudice due to his failure to comply 

with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability 

and, therefore, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 865 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      748
<ALLOWANCES>                                        75
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,723
<PP&E>                                             398
<DEPRECIATION>                                      53
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,404
<SALES>                                            560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   987
<CGS>                                              330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     7
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    181
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 99-30508 Summary Calendar

_____________________ EDWARD R. GROSS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TOGO WEST, Secretary, United States Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (D.C. No. 97-CV-3237-C)

_______________________________________________________ March 1, 2000 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edward Gross appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of the Army to retroactively grant an increase in his service rating. We affirm. The district court concluded that Gross could not demonstrate a clear right to the relief requested, which is a rating of GS-11 retroactive to the date of initial hiring, because the position he accepted with the Corps of Engineers was only offered to candidates with GS-5 or GS-7 ratings. The district court’s conclusion is supported by evidence and is not clearly erroneous.2

The district court also concluded that Gross failed to demonstrate the absence of another adequate remedy because Gross could have appealed his rating as soon as it was made. Gross testified that he was dissatisfied with his rating from the beginning of his employment, therefore the dismissal of his grievance as untimely was not erroneous. The district court concluded that the Corps was not equitably estopped from asserting the limitation preclusion because Gross did not show that the Corps purposefully misrepresented material facts. These conclusions are supported by evidence and are not clearly erroneous. In addition to the grounds cited by the district court, Appellee argues that the Civil Service Reform Act provides the exclusive remedy for Gross and the exclusivity of this remedy precludes Mandamus. The CSRA provides the exclusive remedy for civil service employees seeking ratings changes, which precludes mandamus relief, Towers v. Horner , 791 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1986), therefore mandamus was properly denied. Because the findings of the district court are supported by evidence and the CSRA precludes mandamus relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the
writ of mandamus.
AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company, Appellant, v Dina Gelbstein, Respondent.

[970 NYS2d 812]-

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), entered April 24, 2012, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition to permanently stay arbitration is granted.

When a policyholder purchases supplemental uninsured/ underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) coverage in New York, he or she is insuring against the risk that a tortfeasor’s underinsurance (or complete lack of insurance) will provide less protection for the policyholder than the policyholder provides to others when at fault in causing bodily injury *(see Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Co. v Szeli,*83 NY2d 681, 687 [1994]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera,*12 NY3d 602, 608 [2009]; *Raffellini v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*9 NY3d 196, 204 [2007]; *Weiss v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.,*98 AD3d 1107, 1110 [2012]). SUM coverage is not a “stand-alone policy to fully compensate the insureds for their injuries” *(Weiss v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.,*98 AD3d at 1110).

Here, the respondent, who was struck by a car while walking in the street, had an automobile policy of her own. In that policy, she chose to provide coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person in the event she was at fault in causing bodily injuries. By paying for SUM coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person, she also ensured that she was protected for that same amount in the event that an uninsured or underinsured motorist caused her to sustain injuries. Although the respondent was *664injured, she received $400,000 from the tortfeasors, which is $300,000 more than the coverage she provided to others. Consequently, under paragraph 6 of her SUM endorsement, the amount she was entitled to recover under her SUM coverage was reduced to zero. Although the respondent had the right to demand arbitration *(cf. S’Dao v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 853 [1995]), arbitration would have been academic *(see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Walker,*84 AD3d 960, 961-962 [2011]). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the petition to permanently stay arbitration of her claim for SUM benefits.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of this determination. Balkin, J.E, Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2352 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2352

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
State, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
State, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
              NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED 
              PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of State, 
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $864,550,000.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11


                                CLX ENERGY, INC.
                   Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               Six Months                 Three Months
                                             Ended March 31,             Ended March 31,
                                             ---------------             ---------------
                                           2001          2000          2001           2000
                                           ----          ----          ----           ----

<S>                                   <C>             <C>           <C>           <C>

Net income (loss)                     $   174,678        29,786        87,220     (    1,628)
                                        =========     =========     =========      =========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                    2,636,283     2,637,033     2,636,283      2,637,033

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options                                  73,100        69,445        73,100            -
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------      ---------
                                        2,709,383     2,706,478     2,709,383      2,637,033
                                        =========     =========     =========      =========

 Net income (loss) per share:
    Basic                             $      0.07          0.01          0.03     (     0.00)
                                        =========     =========     =========      =========

    Diluted                           $      0.06          0.01          0.03     (     0.00)
                                        =========     =========     =========      =========

</TABLE>






<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TRACEY D. LEWIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0152-CG-B

)

LIFESOUTH COMMUNITY BLOOD 

CENTER, INC., 

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

The parties having filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Docs. 31,32), all 

claims in this action are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each party shall bear 

her or its own respective costs.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00152-CG-B Document 33 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 16, 2009 

p0116 

Order 

 

January 16, 2009 

137740 & (10)(11) 

CHRISTY ANDERSON, Guardian of the 

Estate of YVETTE ANDERSON, a 

Legally Incapacitated Person, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137740 

 COA: 289047 

Wayne CC: 05-529951-NF 

AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

HATHAWAY, J., not participating. To avoid unnecessary delay to the parties in 

cases considered by this Court before I assumed office, I follow the practice of previous 

justices in transition and participate only in cases that need my vote to achieve a 

majority for a decision.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and Subsidiaries (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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: December 10, 2007 |  | By:/s/
    Barry Weiner
|                         |  | Barry Weiner           
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                         |  |                        

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  NewMarket  Technology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Periodic
Report"), I, Philip M. Verges,  Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal
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 Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: July 5, 2005



/s/Philip M. Verges
------------------------------------------
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer







-----------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

I, Daniel T. Farrell, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of Quincy Energy Corp. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:

August 12, 2005



/s/

Daniel T. Farrell

Daniel T. Farrell

Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132708 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132708 COA: 272893 Berrien CC: 2006-402317-FH; 2006-411251-FH KYLE JACOB ENGELBERG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0319 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.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fitzroy Jackson, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 380]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 18, 1995 *(People v Jackson,*219 AD2d 676 [1995]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, as amended, rendered October 24, 1989.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Schmidt and Krausman, JJ., concur.