alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elena STURDZA, Appellant v. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-7053.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 4, 2011.

Rehearing En Banc Denied April 12, 2011. *

Elena Sturdza, Cabin John, MD, pro se.

Anthony Herman, Covington & Burling, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: GINSBURG, TATEL and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*

 Circuit Judges Henderson and Garland did not participate in this matter.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed January 12, 2010, and April 14, 2010, be affirmed. The claims against John T. Szymkowiez, Szymkowicz & Associates, and Mohammed Mat-tar are either barred by res judicata, *see**513*Nevada v. United States,*468 U.S. 110, 129-80, 108 S.Ct. 2906, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983), or were not raised in district court, *see District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc.,*750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C.Cir.1984). To the extent appellant sought to raise claims against the United Arab Emirates, Angelos Demetriou *&*Associates, and Angelos C. Demetriou, the claims are either duplicative of claims raised in previous litigation, *see Zerilli v. Evening News Ass’n,*628 F.2d 217 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“[A] plaintiff has no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.”) (internal quotation omitted), or were not raised in district court and are therefore forfeited. *Air Florida,*750 F.2d at 1084. To the extent appellant attempted to bring claims against her former attorneys, her complaint did not contain any factual allegations against them. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration. *See Firestone v. Firestone,*76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition "will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       163,567,000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       19,549,000
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         19,921,000
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             201,597,000
<CASH>                                          11,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           7,835,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      12,396,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             262,123,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            133,479,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         49,710,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        32,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  64,997,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               262,123,000
<PREMIUMS>                                  95,752,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         11,724,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             996,000
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 172,000
<BENEFITS>                                  79,603,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 25,374,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         6,700,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,033,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,885,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,148,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,148,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                             113,718,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                          6,832,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                           72,771,000
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          28,512,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            38,549,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                            126,260,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136985 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136985 

 COA: 283970 

St. Clair CC: 06-002884-FC 

LAWRENCE BEASLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1117 

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

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

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (                    *www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*

*Agreement No.:*                     201236.                

*Title:*                     MACS-CSAL Shipping Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping Pte. Ltd. and CSAL Canada-States-Africa Line Inc.                

*Filing Party:*                     Steven B. Chameides; Foley & Lardner LLP; 3000 K Street NW.; Washington, DC 20007.                

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement authorizes the parties to charter space from one another in the trade between the U.S. East and Gulf Coast on the one hand, and certain countries in Africa on the other hand.                

Dated: November 9, 2017.

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

JoAnne D. O'Bryant, 

Program Analyst.

[FR Doc. 2017-24708 Filed 11-14-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
EXHIBIT 32(A)

                            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 Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dwight Foster, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report 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:  December 12, 2005

                                                /s/ Dwight Foster
                                                -----------------------
                                                DWIGHT FOSTER,
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Shamokin Filler Co., Docket No. PENN 2009-775, et al              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Shamokin Filler Co., Docket No. PENN 2009-775, et al

meeting_053112.pdf

meeting053112.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
105 A.3d 625

#### IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY S. BECKERMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 02151183).

January 15, 2015.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-117, concluding that the ethics complaint filed against JEFFREY S. BECKERMAN of SOUTH ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence of unethical conduct, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the complaint against JEFFREY S. BECKERMAN in District Docket No. VC-2012-0029E, is hereby dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Lamont BENNIEFIELD, a/k/a Adrian Benniefield, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.

Adrian Lamont Benniefield, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Lamont Benniefield appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Benniefield,*No. 3:09-cr-00055-HEH-l (E.D.Va. Aug. 19, 2013). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3438 

To amend the microloan program of the Small Business Act to define State, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mr. SABLAN (for himself and Mrs. RADEWAGEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the microloan program of the Small Business 

Act to define State, 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 ‘‘Northern Mariana Is5 lands Entrepreneurship Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROLOAN PROGRAM; DEFINITIONS. 

7 Paragraph (11) of section 7(m) of the Small Business 

8 Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(11)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3438 IH

1 (1) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C), by strik2 ing ‘‘rural’’ and all that follows to the end of the 

3 clause and inserting ‘‘rural;’’; 

4 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period 

5 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub7 paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(E) the term ‘State’ means each of the 

9 several States, the District of Columbia, the 

10 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is11 lands of the United States, Guam, the Com12 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

13 and American Samoa.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
{"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 and Surrenders – October 6, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5aoshdtsod\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-october-6-2017\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – October 6, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-october-6-2017\/embed\/#?secret=5aoshdtsod\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – October 6, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5aoshdtsod\" 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"}
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-116-R and LAKE 2011-117-R and Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC v Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-118-R and LAKE 2011-119-R              

#   Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-116-R and LAKE 2011-117-R and Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC v Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-118-R and LAKE 2011-119-R

argument_072511.pdf

argument_022113.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 9, 2014

No. 04-14-00097-CV

Luis Alfredo ROSA and Myrna Lizzet Rosa,

Appellants

v.

MESTENA OPERATING, LLC,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-12-16486-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

We grant appellants’ motion for extension of time to file their brief and order the brief 

due May 30, 2014.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
{"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":"Documentation, Insurance, and Customs Requirements","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iFBWZ3f4D9\"><a href=\"\/resources-services\/documentation-insurance-and-customs-requirements\/\">Documentation, Insurance, and Customs Requirements<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/resources-services\/documentation-insurance-and-customs-requirements\/embed\/#?secret=iFBWZ3f4D9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Documentation, Insurance, and Customs Requirements” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"iFBWZ3f4D9\" 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"}