alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ricky Lee MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.

No. 10-6994.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

Ricky Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Lee Miller seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. *6961595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,107
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          44,752
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     86,698
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,504
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,326
<LOANS>                                         97,967
<ALLOWANCE>                                        688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 262,921
<DEPOSITS>                                     194,090
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,765
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,066
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 262,921
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,965
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,794
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   821
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,580
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,949
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,585
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 166
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,939
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         431
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.07
<LOANS-NON>                                        455
<LOANS-PAST>                                       441
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   687
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  688
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               688
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3408 

To clarify that the scope of the National Endowment for the Humanities 

includes the study of civics and government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. HILL, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. NORTON, Mr. POCAN, Mr. REED, Ms. SCANLON, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To clarify that the scope of the National Endowment for 

the Humanities includes the study of civics and government. 

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 ‘‘Promoting Program5 ming, Research, Education and Preservation in Civics and 

6 Government Act’’ or the ‘‘PREP Civics and Government 

7 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3408 IH

1 SEC. 2. CIVICS AND GOVERNMENT INCLUDED IN HUMAN2 ITIES. 

3 Section 3(a) of the National Foundation on the Arts 

4 and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 952(a)) is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘civics and government;’’ after ‘‘his6 tory;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# WORK ZONE SAFETY general pitch email: Georgia 

**POTENTIAL SUBJECT LINE: Improving Work Zone Safety with State-Wide Outreach Campaign**

Hello, **[Name of Reporter/Producer]**

The **[Organization]** would like to pursue a potential **[TV Station/Publication] [segment/story]** to share resources and raise awareness for a work zone safety campaign which focuses on reminding commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers to plan their routes, stay alert, and slow down as they approach Georgia work zones. This initiative is part of a national effort led by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the *Our Roads, Our Safety**®* campaign.

**Here’s why the Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign is so critical in Georgia:**

· Georgia has approved a $173 billion infrastructure plan through 2050 that includes many active work zones, impacting the average 5.9 million tons of freight moving across Georgia’s 1,200 miles of interstate highways and 20,000 miles of federal and state highways weekly. Georgia also ranks fourth in the country for fatal crashes involving commercial motor vehicles in work zones across the state. 

· Georgia is a multi-modal logistics center with the world’s busiest airport, the fourth largest inland port, and more than 30,000 companies that rely on the logistics industry to move goods. With the state’s continued expansion and year-round construction season, more passenger vehicles and CMV drivers traveling through Georgia’s roadways will likely encounter active work zones at any time, any day of the week. 

· In 2019, roadway departure and rear-end crashes accounted for 51% of work zone crashes. Both are associated with distraction, driving too fast for conditions, and driver impairment – all entirely preventable.

Through a potential [**segment/feature story**], we welcome the opportunity to share these safety resources/tips and remind **[TV Station/Publication]****[readers/viewers/listeners]**to stay alert and share the road safely, especially when driving through work zones. 

I’d be happy to discuss the topic further via phone and connect you with one of our spokespeople for comment. 

For more information on active work zones in the state, please see below my signature line; and for resources, check out the campaign webpage, here: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ourroads/work-zone-safety-shareable-material

Looking forward to speaking with you.

Best,

**[Contact name]**

**[Contact phone number]**

**[Contact email address]**

**[Website, Facebook and/or Twitter presence]**

FMCSA and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) are taking the lead on amplifying work zone safety messages through outlets like billboards, audio ads, and truck stops reaching CMV drivers traveling through the following work zones:

· I-16/I-75 Interchange Reconstruction in Bibb County

· I-16/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction in Savannah, GA

· I-285/I-20 West Interchange Reconstruction in Fulton County

· I-285 SR400 Interchange Reconstruction in Fulton County

· I-285 I-20 East Interchange Reconstruction in DeKalb County

###

1

# image1.png
|                                  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2003 Report on Form 10-KSB
|                                 



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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Sandor Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer of Information Analysis Incorporated, a Virginia
corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1 | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (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 for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                                                 |  |     |  |                     
|----- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------
|Date: |  | March 29, 2004                                                                  |  | By: |  | /S/ Sandor Rosenberg
|      |  | Sandor Rosenberg, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Information Analysis Incorporated and will be retained by Information Analysis Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
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. The American Coal Company              

#   Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company

AmCoal LAKE 2011-13 Argument Notice 5-9-18.pdf

AmCoal LAKE 2011-13 Argument Notice 5-9-18.htm

Secretary of Labor v. American Coal Company, Docket LAKE 2011-13 -5-9-18.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
# Appendix C

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         180,059
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  70,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,116
<PP&E>                                         16,492,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,684,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,854,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          379,551
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,854,270
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               399,976
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,388)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             72,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (105,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (105,006)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
FIND/SVP, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (No.
33-42746, 33-75828, 333-03076, 333-22439 and 333-22445) on Form S-8 of FIND/SVP,
Inc.  and  subsidiaries  of our report  dated  March 30,  1998,  relating to the
consolidated  balance sheets of FIND/SVP,  Inc. and  subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997,  and 1996,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
shareholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, and the related  schedule,  which report appears
in the  December  31, 1997,  annual  report on Form 10-K of  FIND/SVP,  Inc. and
subsidiaries.

                                                        /S/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 1998
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee, Review of R03, F32, K02, K08, K22, K23, K24 Grants.                    

*Date:*                         February 21-22, 2002.                    

*Time:*                         8 AM to 5 PM.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Yujing Liu, PHD, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Dental and  Craniofacial Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2372.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 7, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-31043  Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
73 A.3d 565

#### Henry P. SKOCZALEK, Appellant v. INMATE ACCOUNTING OFFICE, SCI Huntingdon; John Wetzel, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 19, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2013, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
* 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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51639 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS ESPARZA-ROMO, also known as Carlos Esparza, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-621-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos EsparzaRomo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.