alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"DECEMBER 2020 ACTIVITY REPORT","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HJiOS5gYfU\"><a href=\"\/december-2020-activity-report\/\">DECEMBER 2020 ACTIVITY REPORT<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/december-2020-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=HJiOS5gYfU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“DECEMBER 2020 ACTIVITY REPORT” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"HJiOS5gYfU\" 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"}
#### Reginald C. SWEAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dorris COOK, Head Nurse, Individual and Official Capacity; Harry McKenn, Dr., Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-6595.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 30, 2010.

Reginald C. Sweat, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald C. Sweat appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sweat v. Cook,*No. 9:09-cv-01255-HFF, 2010 WL 1444190 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2010). *808We deny Sweat’s motion to appoint counsel and 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.*
#### Donna Fox BOLDIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alison WINGFIELD; Ceciley Huselin, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-2089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2010.

*831Donna Fox Boldin, Appellant Pro Se. Sherwood Sunderland Day, Day & Current Law Offices, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donna Fox Boldin appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Boldin v. Wingfield,*403 Fed.Appx. 830, 2010 WL 4950590 (W.D.Va. Sept. 16, 2010). 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.*
Exhibit12.1

THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXEDCHARGES(Dollars inmillions)

|                                         |  |  |      |   |         |      |  |  |  |   |       |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--|--|------|---|---------|------|--|--|--|---|-------|---|
|                                    |  |  | 2006 |   |         | 2005 |
| Interestexpense                         |  |  |      | $ | 35.7    |      |  |  |  | $ | 18.1  |   |
| Capitalizedinterest                     |  |  |      |   | — |      |  |  |  |   | 1.1   |   |
| Interest onoperatingleases              |  |  |      |   | 27.1    |      |  |  |  |   | 17.1  |   |
| Totalfixedcharges                       |  |  |      | $ | 62.8    |      |  |  |  | $ | 36.3  |   |
| Pre-taxincome from continuingoperations |  |  |      | $ | 97.5    |      |  |  |  | $ | 88.3  |   |
| Fixedcharges                            |  |  |      |   | 62.8    |      |  |  |  |   | 36.3  |   |
| Less: Capitalizedinterest               |  |  |      |   | — |      |  |  |  |   | (1.1  | ) |
| Totaladjustedearnings                   |  |  |      | $ | 160.3   |      |  |  |  | $ | 123.5 |   |
| Fixedchargecoverage                     |  |  |      |   | 2.55    |      |  |  |  |   | 3.40  |   |
| Deficitof earnings to fixedcharges      |  |  |      |   | n/a     |      |  |  |  |   | n/a   |   |
|                                         |

----
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21

                    Subsidiaries of BHA Group Holdings, Inc.


BHA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; PrecipTech, Ltd., a Canadian
corporation; BHA Group, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; BHA International, Inc., a
U.S. Virgin Islands corporation; BHA Group GmbH, a German corporation; BHA Group
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and BHA Technologies, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and BHA Group International Holdings B.V., a Dutch
corporation, are the only subsidiaries of the Company, each of which are
wholly-owned. Tool Rental and Supply Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Midwest Precipitator Corporation, an Illinois corporation (DBA Midwest Power
Corporation); BHA Group AG, a Swiss corporation; BHA Environmental Technology
Company, Ltd., a China corporation; BHA UK, Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation;
and BHA Purfilter S.L., a Spanish corporation, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of
BHA Group, Inc. BHA Group International Pvt. Ltd., an India corporation, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Group International, Inc.; BHA Technologies AG, a
Swiss corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Technologies, Inc.;
Industrias Filtrantes Purfilter C.A., a Venezuelan corporation, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Purfilter S.L.; BHA do Brazil Ltda, a Brazilian
corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Group International Holdings
B.V.



<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,061
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,699
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     40,078
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,670
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,659
<LOANS>                                        205,191
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 294,615
<DEPOSITS>                                     225,055
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,344
<LONG-TERM>                                     32,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           253
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 294,615
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,139
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,313
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   192
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,644
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,240
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,404
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,848
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,391
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,391
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.05
<LOANS-NON>                                         29
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    38
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,798
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       34
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,811
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,819
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             37


</TABLE>
{"id":1376,"date":"2013-04-25T10:20:16","date_gmt":"2013-04-25T14:20:16","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1376"},"modified":"2018-08-17T10:33:59","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T14:33:59","slug":"announcing-the-second-annual-port-environmental-initiatives-forum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/announcing-the-second-annual-port-environmental-initiatives-forum\/","title":{"rendered":"Announcing the Second Annual Port Environmental Initiatives Forum"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>When:<br \/>\nMay 21, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.<\/p>\n<p>Where:<br \/>\nFederal Maritime Commission<br \/>\n800 N. Capitol St. N.W.<br \/>\nWashington, D.C. 20573<\/p>\n<p>Participants:<br \/>\nMaryland Ports Administration – David Blazer, Chief, Dredge Material Management Program<\/p>\n<p>Port of Seattle – Paul Meyer, Manager, Environmental Permitting and Compliance<\/p>\n<p>Georgia Ports Authority \u2013 Christopher Novak, Director of Engineering and Facilities Maintenance<\/p>\n<p>Moderator:<br \/>\nMr. Kurt Nagle, President, American Association of Ports Authorities<\/p>\n<p>Issue:<br \/>\nThis year\u2019s discussion will focus on water quality issues and initiatives at ports, including ballast exchange innovations, maintenance dredging challenges, storm water management and terminal structure impact.<\/p>\n<p>RSVPs preferred to cstavropoulos@fmc.gov. Walk-Ins Welcome.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When: May 21, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. Where: Federal Maritime Commission 800 N. Capitol St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20573 Participants: Maryland Ports Administration – David Blazer, Chief, Dredge Material Management Program Port of Seattle – Paul Meyer, Manager, Environmental Permitting and Compliance Georgia Ports Authority \u2013 Christopher Novak, Director of... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/announcing-the-second-annual-port-environmental-initiatives-forum\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1376"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1376"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1377,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1376\/revisions\/1377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<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 Annual Report of Interlinq Software Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael H. Jackman, President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ MICHAEL H. JACKMAN

Michael H. Jackman
President and Chief Executive Officer

September 27, 2002
NO. 12-15-00176-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 217TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2014-0568

RANDY EARL CRAWFORD §

§

IN THE 12TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Randy Earl Crawford, Appellant in the above styled and 

numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file 

appellant's brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

and for good cause shows the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 217th District Court of Angelina 

County, Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Randy Earl 

Crawford, and numbered 2014-0568. Appellant was convicted Theft. 

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Fifteen (15) years in Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on June 25, 2015. 

5. Notice of appeal was given on June 26, 2015. 

6. The clerk's record was filed on August 24, 2015; the reporter's record 

was filed on July 7, 2015. 

7. The appellate brief is presently due on September 23, 2015. 

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days from the 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00176-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

9/22/2015 1:57:17 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/22/2015 1:57:17 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
current due date.

9. No extensions to file the brief have been received in this cause.

10. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested 

extension:

After a series of health issues, counsel has been hospitalized and will not be 

able to complete the brief by September 23, 2015.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this 

Court grant this Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other 

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

 /s/John D. Reeves

____________________

John D. Reeves

Attorney at Law

1007 Grant

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Phone (936) 632-160

Fax: (936) 632-1640

tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000

Counsel for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred 

with opposing counsel who is not opposed to an extension.

/s/John D. Reeves

___________________________

John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s 

Motion to Extend Time to file Appellant’s Brief on this 22nd day of September, 

2015 forwarded to State’s Attorney, April Ayers-Perez, Angelina County, by 

electronic service at aprerez@angelinacounty.net.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________

John D. Reeves

Attorney for Appellant, 

David Charles Dailey
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3250 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit uniformed law enforcement 

officers to carry agency-issued firearms in certain Federal facilities, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2021 

Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH (for himself, Mr. BUDD, and Mr. RUTHERFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit uniformed 

law enforcement officers to carry agency-issued firearms 

in certain Federal facilities, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Officers of 

5 the Law In Civilian Establishments Act of 2021’’ or as 

6 the ‘‘POLICE Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3250 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT OF2 FICERS TO CARRY AGENCY-ISSUED FIRE3 ARMS. 

4 Section 930 of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (d)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the pe10 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(4) the lawful carrying of agency-issued fire13 arms and other dangerous weapons in Facility Secu14 rity Level I and II Federal civilian public access fa15 cilities by a uniformed officer, agent, or employee of 

16 the United States, a State, or a political subdivision 

17 thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or su18 pervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or 

19 prosecution of any violation of law.’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

21 following: 

22 ‘‘(4) The term ‘Facility Security Level’ means 

23 a security risk assessment level assigned to a Fed24 eral facility by the facility’s security agency in ac25 cordance with the biannually issued Interagency Se26 curity Committee Standard. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3250 IH

1 ‘‘(5) The term ‘civilian public access facility’ 

2 means a facility open to the general public. 

3 ‘‘(6) The term ‘uniformed officer, agent, or em4 ployee’ means an officer, agent, or employee wearing 

5 a clearly identifiable agency standard-issued uniform 

6 with a clearly identifiable agency-issued identifica7 tion badge.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### In Re: Jimmie Craig DANIELS, Petitioner.

No. 10-1459.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2010.

Jimmie Craig Daniels, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmie Craig Daniels petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has denied Daniels’ § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Daniels’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Daniels’ motion for release. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7496

FRANK MIDDLETON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN H. CARMICHAEL, JR., Warden; CHARLES M.

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-97-1711-2-8AJ)

Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 26, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. William Ansel Collins, Jr.,

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Middleton, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition.* We have

reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate

judge. See Middleton v. Carmichael, No. CA-97-1711-2-8AJ (D.S.C.

Sept. 28, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED