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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 704

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to conduct a joint special resources study to evaluate the suitability 

and feasibility of establishing the area known as the Rim of the Valley 

Corridor as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area in the State of California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. DREIER, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. 

SOLIS, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to conduct a joint special resources study 

to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing 

the area known as the Rim of the Valley Corridor as 

a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in the State of California, 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,
2

•HR 704 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rim of the Valley Cor3 ridor Study Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RIM OF THE VALLEY CORRIDOR STUDY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior and 

6 the Secretary of Agriculture (in this Act referred to as 

7 the ‘‘Secretaries’’) shall conduct a joint special resource 

8 study of the lands, waters, and interests of the area com9 prising the Rim of the Valley Corridor in Southern Cali10 fornia, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘SANTA 

11 MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY ZONE—RIM 

12 OF THE VALLEY CORRIDOR Parklands and Open 

13 Space’’ and dated July 30, 2002. 

14 (b) STUDY TOPICS.—The study shall evaluate the 

15 suitability and feasibility of establishing the area as a unit 

16 of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. 

17 (c) CRITERIA.—In conducting the study authorized 

18 by this section, the Secretaries shall use the criteria for 

19 the study for areas for potential inclusion in the National 

20 Park System contained in section 8(c) of Public Law 91–

21 383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)). 

22 (d) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study au23 thorized by this section, the Secretaries shall consult with 

24 appropriate State, county and local government entities. 
3

•HR 704 IH 

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 There are authorized to be appropriated such funds 

3 as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000884504
<NAME> THERMOENERGY CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         259,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               259,995
<PP&E>                                          19,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,809)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 902,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,802,529
<BONDS>                                      2,199,379
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,639
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,102,722)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   902,825
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  938,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             215,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (827,746)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (827,746)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
#### Israel G. HALPERT, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Anchor Slide Fastener Corp., Bankrupt, Plaintiff, v. Edgar O. APPLEBY and John Davison, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 3, 1958.

*6Chauncey H. Levy and Robert J. Blum, New York City, for plaintiff.

Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City, for defendants.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

Defendant Appleby moves to dismiss the complaint as against him on the ground that he was not personally served with the summons. He swears that it was left by the marshal with the receptionist in the office where he is employed and by her delivered to him. Plaintiff relies solely on the return of personal service by the deputy marshal. I am thus faced with the necessity of judging the relative weight of the official return and the defendant’s denial.

The question is an important and difficult one on which the parties have submitted no authorities.

It would be highly inconvenient and, indeed, demeaning to the dignity of the court and its officers if a defendant, by a mere denial, could force the plaintiff to take the deposition of the marshal in support of his official return. At common law the return was conclusive and a defendant’s sole remedy for a false return was an action against the officer for a false return. Goubot v. De Crouy, 1 Cromp. & M. 772; Tillman v. Davis, 28 Ga. 494, 497. This was the rule in the federal courts of Pennsylvania under the Conformity Act, Trimble v. Erie Electric Motor Co., C.C.W.D.Pa., 89 F. 51, and has been followed there in one case since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Woods v. Zellers, D.C. E.D.Pa., 9 F.R.D. 6. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has, however, said that, in spite of the old strict rule, the courts have reached a stage in which the facts on which the service rests may be found by the court, Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Philadelphia Knitting Mills Co., 3 Cir., 46 F.2d 25.

It has been urged that to permit impeachment of the marshal’s return opens the way to promiscuous and fraudulent invalidation of judgments but the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has replied that the rule affords appropriate protection because “the officer’s return upon the summons imports verity which can be overcome only by strong and convincing evidence”. Hicklin v. Edwards, 8 Cir., 226 F.2d 410, 414. See also Cleaves v. Funk, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 828, 829. I therefore adopt the rule that the marshal’s return may be impeached but only by strong and convincing evidence. The unseemly inquiry into the truth of the official certificate need not be pursued unless an almost irrefragable case is presented against it.

Here an important and comparatively uninterested witness would have been the receptionist who is said to have received the summons from the marshal. Nevertheless the defendant undertakes to controvert the marshal’s return by his own affidavit uncorroborated by this participant in the transaction who was employed in the same office with him. The evidence is insufficient to impeach the return and the motion is denied.

So ordered.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
Laurence J.N. Cooper, certify that:



|   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. |  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|   | 
|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: April 30, 2018



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Laurence J.N. Cooper                                 
|Laurence J.N. Cooper, M.D., Ph.D. Chief
Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
[No. 30016-8-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2005.]

#### *In the Matter of the Custody of*A.C. et al. *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Susan Cumming, *Respondent,*and Michael Adam Cumming, *Sr., Appellant.*

Order on Remand Published at the Direction of the Court of Appeals.

*158*Jeffrey J. Hatch (of Marsh & Higgins, PC.),*for appellant.

*Jennifer K. Snider*(of *Reed &*Johnson), for respondent.

¶1

Quinn-Brintnall, C.J.

— On October 6, 2005, Department II of the Washington Supreme Court granted Michael Cumming’s Petition for Review and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals Division Two for reconsideration in light of *In re Parentage of C.A.M.A.,*154 Wn.2d 52, 109 P.3d 405 (2005). In that case, our Supreme Court held that RCW 26.09.240, the statute which provided third party visitation rights, is unconstitutional in its entirety. *C.A.M.A.,*154 Wn.2d at 70.

¶2 Our initial opinion in this case can be found at *Cumming v. Cumming,*124 Wn. App. 846, 103 P.3d 226 (2004). In affirming the trial court’s visitation plan, we stated:

> *159Here, the grandmother obtained visitation rights under RCW 26.09.240. This statute does not contain the provisions which *Troxel v. Granville,*530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) found troubling. *See In re Parentage of C.A.M.A.,*120 Wn. App. 199, 212-14, 84 P.3d 1253 (2004).

124 Wn. App. at 854.

¶3 Having reconsidered our earlier decision in light of the holding in *In re Parentage of C.A.M.A.,*154 Wn.2d 52, 109 P.3d 405 (2005), we now reverse and vacate the trial court’s order granting the children’s grandmother limited visitation rights. And remand the case to the superior court for correction of the parenting plan accordingly.
# Information

# Table_1

# Appendix_table_1

# Appendix_table_2
0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

Chart 3-1. Fewer than 2 in 10 employed persons work part 

time; fewer than 1 in 10 workers is self-employed

Part-time workers

Self-employed 

workers

NOTE: Shaded areas represent recessions. Data are seasonally adjusted. Beginning in 1994, data reflect the introduction of a major 

redesign of the Current Population Survey that included changes affecting the measurement of part-time workers and selfemployment. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent of total employment

Chart 3-1. Fewer than 2 in 10 employed persons work part 

time; fewer than 1 in 10 workers is self-employed

• In 2006, about 17 percent of all employed persons usually worked part time 

(less than 35 hours per week). For the vast majority of these workers, a parttime schedule was preferred.

• The pronounced upward shift in part-time employment in January 1994 was 

due to definitional and measurement changes associated with the redesign of 

the Current Population Survey. 

• In 2006, about 7 percent of all workers were self-employed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1006** 

I n R e : MINH VU HOANG , Debtor

.

---------------------- MINH VU HOANG,
Debtor

– Appellant,

v.
G ARY A. ROSEN; ROGER SCHLOSSBERG ,
Trustees

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 03431

- DKC ; 05

- 21078 )

Submitted : May 21 , 2012 Decided: May 25, 2012

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Minh Vu Hoang , Appellant Pro Se. Gary A. Rosen , Rockville, Maryland; Roger Schlossberg , SCHLOSSBERG & ASSOCIATES , Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Minh Vu Hoang appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing as interlocutory her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders authorizing the employment of certain financial professionals in the underlying bankruptcy pr oceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Hoang v. Rosen (In R e: Minh Vu Hoang) , Nos. 8:11

- cv - 03431

- DKC;
05

- 21078 (D. Md. July 11, 2011; Dec. 1, 2011; Dec. 14, 2011)

. In light of th is disposition, we deny as moot the motion to
intervene. We deny Hoang’s motion for appointment of counsel , and 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 542 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 542

 To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States 
 when certain lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by 
                          Public Law 102-562.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States 
 when certain lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by 
                          Public Law 102-562.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESERVATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS, LIVINGSTON PARISH, 
              LOUISIANA.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 102 of Public Law 102-562 (106 Stat. 4234) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--'';
            (2) by striking ``and subject to the reservation in 
        subsection (b),''; and
            (3) by striking subsection (b).
    (b) Implementation of Amendment.--The Secretary of the Interior 
shall execute the legal instruments necessary to effectuate the 
amendment made by subsection (a)(3).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5           
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial  statements  included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the period  ended  September  30, 1996 and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

                                          
<S>                                      <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                    259,196
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,286,229
<ALLOWANCES>                              373,850
<INVENTORY>                               491,904
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,371,777
<PP&E>                                    444,565
<DEPRECIATION>                            274,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            8,304,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     10,883,675
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  84,282
<OTHER-SE>                                9,490,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              8,304,643
<SALES>                                   2,498,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          2,498,729
<CGS>                                     1,658,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             1,658,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          32,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        47,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (688,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (688,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              (688,006)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.13)
                                       
                                       

</TABLE>
**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 of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Dennis C. Cossey,
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of
      my
      knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.








Date:
      May
      22, 2006





By:
      /s/
      Dennis C. Cossey





Name:
      Dennis C. Cossey,


Title:
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Douglas B. SEIBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nannie MOHEAD, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Frank Roach, Unit Manager/Building Supervisor; Jesse Arrington, Correctional Officer; Milton *269Reed, VCE General Manager; Doug Chapman, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Belton Williams, VCE Industrial Group Manager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-7726.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Douglas B. Seibert, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas B. Seibert appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Seibert’s motion to appoint counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Seibert v. Mohead,*No. 2:12-cv-00399-RAJ-TEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 4, 2012). 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.*
0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Chart 3-1. Fewer than 2 in 10 employed persons work part 

time; fewer than 1 in 10 workers is self-employed

Part-time workers

Self-employed 

workers

NOTE: Shaded areas represent recessions. Data are seasonally adjusted. Beginning in 1994, data reflect the introduction of a major 

redesign of the Current Population Survey that included changes affecting the measurement of part-time workers and selfemployment. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent of total employment

Chart 3-1. Fewer than 2 in 10 employed persons work part 

time; fewer than 1 in 10 workers is self-employed

• In 2005, about 17 percent of all employed persons usually worked part time 

(less than 35 hours per week). For the vast majority of these workers, a parttime schedule was preferred.

• The pronounced upward shift in part-time employment in January 1994 was 

due to definitional and measurement changes associated with the redesign of 

the Current Population Survey. 

• In 2005, about 7 percent of all workers were self-employed.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement:

[tba]

# Status:

Closed meeting.

# Place:

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

# Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting:

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 2 p.m.

# Change in the Meeting:

Additional item.

The following item has been added to the Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Closed Meeting agenda:

## Opinion

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(c)(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(10) permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, determined that Commission business required the above change.

                    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the                           ( print page 34602)                        scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.                

Dated: July 14, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-17091 Filed 7-14-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P