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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-389-037]

                    Take notice that on December 5, 2001, Columbia Gulf Transmission                           ( print page 65188)                        Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of December 1, 2001:                 

Second Revised Sheet No. 20

First Revised Sheet No. 20A

First Revised Sheet No. 20B 

Columbia Gulf states that it is filing the tariff sheets to comply with the Commission's October 24, 2001 orders approving negotiated rate agreements in Docket Nos. RP96-389-031, and -032.

Columbia Gulf states further that it has served copies of the filing on all parties identified on the official service list in Docket No. RP96-389.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “RIMS” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link.                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-31075 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
{"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":"Remarks as Provided by Chairman Daniel B. Maffei: Celebrating Maritime Day 2021","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"l4wYz110GO\"><a href=\"\/remarks-as-provided-by-chairman-daniel-b-maffei-celebrating-maritime-day-2021\/\">Remarks as Provided by Chairman Daniel B. Maffei: Celebrating Maritime Day 2021<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/remarks-as-provided-by-chairman-daniel-b-maffei-celebrating-maritime-day-2021\/embed\/#?secret=l4wYz110GO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Remarks as Provided by Chairman Daniel B. Maffei: Celebrating Maritime Day 2021” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"l4wYz110GO\" 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"}
84 A.3d 1059

#### Christopher BERRY, Petitioner v. PA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE; Vincent Mooney, Warden Sci-Coal Township; Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Respondents.

No. 189 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 31, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2014, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of                ETwine Holdings, Inc. |

**ETWINE      HOLDINGS, INC.**

| By:    | */s/                Clifford Lerner*                                                       |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | CLIFFORD                LERNER                                                             |
|                  | President,                Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial                Officer, |
{"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":"Revocations – January 19, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0MYS5AHQxq\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-january-19-2018\/\">Revocations – January 19, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-january-19-2018\/embed\/#?secret=0MYS5AHQxq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations – January 19, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"0MYS5AHQxq\" 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"}
* 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10864 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN, also known as Big Mark, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-68-8-A

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcus Leland Freeman, federal prisoner # 29129-077, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from his conviction and sentence, purportedly pursuant to F ED . R.
C RIM . P. 52(b). Freeman’s appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Freeman’s appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Freeman, who is represented by counsel, is hereby warned that any furtherNo. 04-10864 -2- repetitious or frivolous attempts to circumvent statutory restrictions on filing second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to vacate, whether pursued by him pro se or with the assistance of any other person (including any attorney) acting on his behalf, may result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 06, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 06, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0157. CHARLES SMITH v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2015SUCR145
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Huntsman Corporation and HuntsmanInternational LLC (the “Companies”) for the period ended September 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Companies.
| /s/ PETER R. HUNTSMAN     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Peter R. Huntsman         |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                  |
| * *                  |
| February 21, 2007    |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael S. Fields, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL S. FIELDS                    
|                       |  |  |  | Michael S. Fields Chief Executive
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant 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,
      Scott
      R. Oglum, Chief Executive Officer of Theater Xtreme entertainment Group, Inc.,
      hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2006:





(1)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      that
      the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Theater Xtreme
      Entertainment Group, Inc.




Dated:
      November 14, 2006





/s/
      Scott R. Oglum


Scott
      R.
      Oglum, Chief Executive Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
      filed
      by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to liability under that Section.
      This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
      any
      filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent
      that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such
      filing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus L. WELTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2856.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 2010.*

Decided Nov. 19, 2010.

Meredith P. Duchemin, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marcus L. Welton, Pekin, IL, pro se.

Erika L. Bierma, Federal Defender Services, Madison, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge and TERENCE T.' EVANS, Circuit Judge.

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Order

Our most recent decision in this criminal prosecution remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of *United States v. Corner,*598 F.3d 411 (7th. Cir.2010) (en banc).

On remand, the district judge reduced Welton’s sentence from 188 to 151 months’ imprisonment, adjusting for the crack-powder ratio in the Sentencing Guidelines. Welton has taken another appeal. His lawyer has filed an *Anders*brief, observing that the district court carried out this court’s instructions and that the reduced sentence cannot plausibly be contested as unreasonably high. Welton was notified of counsel’s position but has not used his opportunity, see Circuit Rule 51, to respond.

Counsel’s evaluation of the appeal is accurate. The only issue is how (if at all) to adjust the sentence in light of the discretion recognized by *Corner.*The district judge used that discretion, and an attack on the 151-month term would be frivolous. *78Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous.
#### In re BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC and BNY Convergex Execution Solutions, LLC, Petitioners.

Misc. No. 961.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

ORDER

DYK, Circuit Judge.

BNY ConvergEx Group, LLC et al. (BNY), the defendants in a patent infringement action, seek a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to vacate its August 26, 2010 order denying BNY’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and to direct the court to dismiss the underlying complaint. The plaintiff in the action, Realtime Data, LLC, opposes.

An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction cannot be appealed as a matter of right as soon as it is entered. Thus, a party must ordinarily *485wait until final judgment has issued before seeking appellate review. Still, as is evidenced by this petition, some defendants seek an end run around the final judgment rule by asking the court of appeals to issue mandamus.

The petitioners contend that they can demonstrate that the trial court’s jurisdictional decision was clearly incorrect and further assert that waiting for final judgment would result in a “gross miscarriage of justice,” presumably meaning that if they are correct then they will have been forced to expend unnecessary costs associated with a trial that should have not occurred in the first place.

To issue mandamus solely for this reason, however, would clearly undermine the extraordinary nature of its form of relief. To grant mandamus simply because a party asserts it will be forced to expend unnecessary costs would make a large class of interlocutory orders routinely reviewable. *See Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland,*346 U.S. 379, 383, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) (“[I]t is established that the extraordinary writs cannot be used as substitutes for appeals ... even though hardship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial”).

For these reasons, mandamus is reserved generally for those interlocutory orders that are clearly and indisputably incorrect and then only if such error cannot be effectively reviewed at the end of the case. We cannot say that this is such a case.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered- That:

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 3



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II No. CV-14-604

MYRTLE STEVENS APPELLANT

V.
SEECO, INC., ET AL. APPELLEES O PINION D ELIVERED J ANUARY 14, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2010-181 (II)] HONORABLE MICHAEL A. MAGGIO, JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge This oil-and-gas case returns to us after we dismissed it in 2012 for lack of finality. Stevens v. SEECO, Inc. , 2012 Ark. App. 629. The parties have obtained what appears to be a final order, but an attachment to that order, which is critical to determining its finality, is not contained in appellant’s addendum. We therefore order rebriefing. The essential facts are that appellant Myrtle Stevens claims an interest in the mineral rights to forty acres of land. Appellees SEECO, Inc., and several descendants of the late W.E. Hall claim mineral rights to the same land. The circuit court ruled that at least sixty-five of the Hall descendants had an interest in the minerals and that their lessee, SEECO, should pay them royalties based on the ownership percentages set forth in “Exhibit A” to the court’s order. The court’s order is contained in appellant’s addendum, but Exhibit A is not.Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 3

Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Arkansas (2014), provides that an appellant’s addendum must include documents that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction. Spears v. Spears , 2013 Ark. App. 164. Our appellate jurisdiction depends upon the entry of a final, appealable order. Lookabaugh v. Hanna Oil & Gas Co. , 2014 Ark. App. 59. In this case, Exhibit A is essential to confirm that the circuit court adjudicated the ownership of one hundred percent of the mineral interests at issue and thus entered a final order. See Spears , supra ; Stevens , supra . The exhibit must therefore be included in appellant’s addendum. Complete rebriefing, however, is not necessary. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4) (2014). Appellant is directed to file a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days of the date of this order that includes the circuit court’s March 20, 2014 order with Exhibit A attached. Failure to file the supplemental addendum within the prescribed time may result in affirmance of the circuit court’s order. Supplemental addendum ordered. W HITEAKER and H IXSON , JJ., agree. S. Butler Bernard, Jr. , for appellant. Daily & Woods, P.L.L.C. , by: Robert R. Briggs and Colby T. Roe , for appellee.

2