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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                        173,913
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              173,913
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                176,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         312,109
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      482
<OTHER-SE>                                    (135,798)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  176,793
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,861
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              40,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,036)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.004)


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TOMMY J. EVANS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-326 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed October 19, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Tommy J. Evans, pro se. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > News Articles > Industry Advisory—Requirement to Maintain Accurate Information on FMC Form FMC-1

Industry Advisory—Requirement to Maintain Accurate Information on FMC Form FMC-1


Posted on:


January 10, 2023 The Federal Maritime Commission reminds common carriers and marine terminal operators they must maintain an accurate Common Carrier Tariff and MTO Schedule Registration Form (FMC-1). Any changes to information submitted through the FMC-1 must immediately be sent to the Commission. Existing filers should review information previously submitted to the Commission to confirm it remains accurate. Failing to maintain a current and accurate FMC-1 could result in fines and other penalties. New and existing filers can find additional information on their obligations in a User’s Manual available online. Information contained in the FMC-1 is used by the Commission in administering the law and in providing consumer assistance. For questions regarding Form FMC-1, please contact tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.
 News Articles
 Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2691 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2691

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 529 plans to be 
used for certain non-degree technical training certificate programs and 
                        apprenticeship programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2021

   Mr. Hagedorn (for himself, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Cole, Mr. Smith of 
 Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Norman, Mr. Valadao, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. 
 Bacon, Mr. Estes, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Moore of Utah, Ms. 
 Herrell, Mr. Gosar, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Mr. Carter of Texas, 
   Mr. Bost, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. 
  Gallagher, Mr. Stauber, and Mr. Van Drew) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 529 plans to be 
used for certain non-degree technical training certificate programs and 
                        apprenticeship programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Workforce Empowerment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. 529 ACCOUNT FUNDING FOR NON-DEGREE TECHNICAL TRAINING 
              CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS AND APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 529(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) Treatment of certain expenses associated with 
        technical training certificate programs and registered 
        apprenticeship programs.--Any reference in this subsection to 
        the term `qualified higher education expense' shall include a 
        reference to expenses for fees, books, supplies, tools, and 
        equipment required for the participation of a designated 
        beneficiary in--
                    ``(A) an apprenticeship program registered and 
                certified with the Secretary of Labor under section 1 
                of the National Apprenticeship Act (29 U.S.C. 50), and
                    ``(B) a recognized postsecondary credential as 
                defined under section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and 
                Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102), including testing and 
                other fees required by the organization issuing the 
                recognized postsecondary credential as a condition of 
                obtaining or maintaining the credential.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to expenses paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this 
Act for programs beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Brent Shaw, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Brent Shaw



Brent Shaw

Acting Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2003
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Dye Participates on Panel at AAPA Annual Convention in Long Beach","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"S2ZLVD7KoP\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-dye-participates-on-panel-at-aapa-annual-convention-in-long-beach\/\">Commissioner Dye Participates on Panel at AAPA Annual Convention in Long Beach<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-dye-participates-on-panel-at-aapa-annual-convention-in-long-beach\/embed\/#?secret=S2ZLVD7KoP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Dye Participates on Panel at AAPA Annual Convention in Long Beach” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"S2ZLVD7KoP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10135

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Guillermo Zarco Villasenor, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-373-2

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Guillermo Zarco Villasenor has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Zarco Villasenor has filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10135 Document: 00516164379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 21-10135

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as 

well as Villasenor’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s 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. Zarco Villasenor’s motion to appoint counsel and for an 

extension of time is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 

902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 21-10135 Document: 00516164379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Lidinsky Addresses European Maritime Law Organization In Dublin, Ireland","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2ywV4e4eBL\"><a href=\"\/chairman-lidinsky-addresses-european-maritime-law-organization-in-dublin-ireland\/\">Chairman Lidinsky Addresses European Maritime Law Organization In Dublin, Ireland<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-lidinsky-addresses-european-maritime-law-organization-in-dublin-ireland\/embed\/#?secret=2ywV4e4eBL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Lidinsky Addresses European Maritime Law Organization In Dublin, Ireland” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"2ywV4e4eBL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 13, 2019

No. 04-18-00714-CV

ESTATE OF JOANNE COOKSEY FRIEND, DECEASED,

From the County Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6904-16

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due April 1, 2019; however, the court has granted extensions 

of time until May 15 to file the brief. Appellee has filed a motion for a further fifteen-day extension 

of time. 

We grant the motion and order appellee’s brief due May 30, 2019. The court does not 

ordinarily grant extensions of more than sixty days beyond the original due date. Counsel is therefore 

advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief is 

due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court 

of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable 

assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court 

does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on 

this 13th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Deonandre HODGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6921.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 22, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2013.

Billy Deonandre Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

*277Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Billy Deonandre Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hodge 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Home > About > Strategies, Budgets, Plans, and Reports > FMC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003-2008

## FMC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003-2008
#### Scott L. INGLE, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant.

No. CIV-2-76-18.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

Memorandum Opinion and Order Jan. 4, 1977.

On Sufficiency of Bond Aug. 8, 1977.

Howell H. Sherrod, Jr., Johnson City, Tenn.; Rom Meares, Maryville, Tenn., and Edwin L. Treadway, Hunter, Smith, Davis, Norris, Treadway & Hadden, Kingsport, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Sam Akers, and W. B. Luther, Luther, Anderson, Ruth & Cleary, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

The plaintiff’s application to dismiss voluntarily her claim herein of simple negligence hereby is GRANTED, including her claim as to the defendant’s failure to exercise the reasonable care required under the provisions of Restatement of the Law (Second), Torts (2d), § 388.

The Court strikes also the plaintiff’s claim under the provisions of the rule in the Restatement of the Law (Second), Torts (2d), § 552D. Those provisions have not been adopted in Tennessee to apply to claims of personal injury or wrongful death. *Cooper Painting & Coatings v. SCM Corporation,*C.A.Tenn. (1970), 62 Tenn.App. 13, 457 S.W.2d 864, 867[4], certiorari denied (1970); *Ford Motor Company v. Lonon*(1966), 217 Tenn. 400, 398 S.W.2d 240; see also: *Walker v. Decora*(1971), 225 Tenn. 504, 471 S.W.2d 778; *Jasper Aviation v. McCullum Aviation, Inc.*(Tenn., 1972), 497 S.W.2d 240.

ON SUFFICIENCY OF BOND

The appellee Sears, Roebuck & Company raised for determination by the clerk of this Court an objection to the sufficiency of the bond for costs on appeal in this civil action. Rule 7, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The clerk found that such bond should be increased to the principal sum of $1,200. See findings of the clerk of July 18, 1977 herein. The appellant strike moved the Court for a review, in the exercise of its inherent power, of that finding. *Cf. Hamilton Bros. v. Hazzouri,*D.C.Pa. (1952), 104 F.Supp. 659.

“* * * The purpose of the bond for costs is to give the appellee security for the payment of such costs as may be awarded to [it] under the provisions of Rule 39 [Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure] in [the] event the appellant is unsuccessful in h[er] appeal. * * *” 9 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.) 1302, 1207.02. Such costs include the docket fee paid to the clerk of the Court of Appeals, the cost of producing copies of briefs and the appendix of the record, the cost of the reporter’s transcript if necessary for the appeal, the premiums paid for costs or supersedeas bonds or other bonds to preserve rights pending appeal, and the fee for filing the notice of appeal. Rules 39(c), (e), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; 9 Moore’s, *supra,*at 1307, 1207.-06.

*261The appellant having already incurred and paid a substantial portion of such costs as might be awarded the appellee, and she appearing willing (and apparently able) to pay those remaining costs herein, it hereby is

ORDERED that the foregoing findings of the clerk of this Court are MODIFIED; and the appellant will increase her cost bond herein to the principal amount of $750 within 5 days herefrom.