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":"cmoran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoran\/","title":"Commission Approves Supplemental Order Expanding Fact Finding 29 Authority - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2IQSaxUhDS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/commission-approves-supplemental-order-expanding-fact-finding-29-authority\/\">Commission Approves Supplemental Order Expanding Fact Finding 29 Authority<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/commission-approves-supplemental-order-expanding-fact-finding-29-authority\/embed\/#?secret=2IQSaxUhDS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Approves Supplemental Order Expanding Fact Finding 29 Authority” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"2IQSaxUhDS\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Federal Maritime Commission yesterday approved a\u00a0Supplemental Order\u00a0that expands the authority of\u00a0Fact Finding 29, \u201cInternational Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement\u201d. The Supplemental Order authorizes Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye, as the designated Fact Finding Officer, to investigate ocean carriers operating in alliances and calling the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, or the […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
#### George Thomas WILKERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-17293.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

George Wilkerson, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Robin C. Campbell, Mark T. Flewelling, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell *&*Trytten, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

George Thomas Wilkerson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various state-law claims concerning, *inter alia,*his home mortgage loan and the foreclosure of his home in 2001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Silvas v. E*Trade Mortgage Corp.,*514 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the complaint. To the extent that Wilkerson’s claims fall within the categories listed in 12 C.F.R. § 560.2(b), they are preempted by the Home Owners’ Loan Act. *See Silvas,*514 F.3d at 1004-06. His remaining claims are time-barred. *See Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. York,*326 U.S. 99, 110-11, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945) (in diversity cases, forum state law determines which state’s statute of limitations governs); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 318, 337-39, 343 (setting forth relevant California statutes of limitations). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l,*300 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2002).

Wilkerson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Wilkerson’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99(b)

ASSISTED HOUSING FUND L.P. I  CERTIFICATION OF THE TREASURER AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly report of Assisted Housing Fund L.P. I (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brett J. Atkinson, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer of Assisted Housing Fund L.P. I, do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | By: |  | /s/BRETT J. ATKINSONBrett J. Atkinson Treasurer and Principal Accounting
Officer of Assisted Housing Fund, L.P. I
| |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

---

QuickLinks
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

American LAKE 2009-35 Meeting Notice 6-3-15.pdf

American LAKE 2009-35 Meeting Notice 6-3-15.htm

secretary-labor-v-american-coal-docket-lake-2009-35.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
#### Tony Anthony PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Levern Cohen, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-7328.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 27, 2008.

Tony Anthony Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Anthony Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pitts 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.*
Order entered February 16 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00935 - CR No. 05 - 22 - 00936 - CR TROY ADAM LEWIS , Appellant

V. STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal f

rom the 354th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 33841CR, 33842CR

O RDER Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief in cause number 05

- 22

- 00936

- CR is GRANTED , and we ORDER the brief received with the motion f iled as of the date of this order. The State’s brief in cause number 05

- 22

- 00936

- CR is due March 20, 2023. Appellant’s brief in cause number 05

- 22

- 00935

- CR was filed January 31, 2023, and the State’s brief in that appeal is due March 2, 2023./s/ NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE
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 Co., Docket No. LAKE 2010-408-R.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Co., Docket No. LAKE 2010-408-R.

argument_110812.pdf

Oral_Argument_Nov_8_2012.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
Exhibit 32  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 Pacific Alliance Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Clark, President, CEO and Principal Executive and Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:  (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 results of operations of the Company.   Dated:  April 15, 2010  /s/ Steven Clark  Steven Clark President, CEO and Principal Executive and Financial Officer
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00038 - CV ELKIN - BORGELT, LLC AND SHERRY ELKIN , A PPELLANT S V. ESTATE OF ROGER WALDO BORGELT, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON

BEHALF OF ELKIN - BORGELT, LLC , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 207th District Court

Hays County, Texas Trial Court No . 21 - 0744 , Honorable S. K. Tibbe , Presiding



### April 12 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellants, Elkin - Borgelt , LLC and Sherry Elkin, appeal from the trial court’s order . 1 Now pending before this C ourt is Appellants ’ unopposed motion seeking voluntar y dismissal of the appeal. The C ourt finds that the motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the C ourt has been delivered to date , we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Because the motion does not reflect an agreement of the parties concerning the payment of costs, costs will be taxed against Appellant s . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entert ained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Vincent  Cuervo, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Amended annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of DEFAULT
PROOF CREDIT CARD SYSTEM, INC.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this amended annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a - 15(e) and 15d - 15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b.	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c.	disclosed in this amended annual report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.	All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b.	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2005

    /s/ Vincent  Cuervo
    --------------------
    Vincent  Cuervo
    Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2006



/s/ Michael J. KeoughMichael J. Keough, President and Chief Executive Officer
78 A.3d 1020

#### Jamal REID, Petitioner v. Judge Rose NASTASI-DELFINO [Sic], Respondent.

No. 135 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 13, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The Prothonotary is directed to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
73 A.3d 525

#### SOUTH OF SOUTH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, Kevin Broad, Patrick Borkowski, Nicole Flaquer and Wei Jing Lei, Petitioners v. PHILADELPHIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, The City of Philadelphia and Dung Phat LLC, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 5, 2013.

*21
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

> Did the Commonwealth Court issue an opinion contrary to its prior decisions and the established case law of this Court by lowering the standard for obtaining a “use variance”' through improperly eliminating the “minimum variance necessary to afford relief’ element of determining a use variance, especially where there were no findings at any level in this matter that Respondent [Dung Phat] was seeking the minimum variance that would afford relief?
#### Tenney, Appellant, *v.*General Electric Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Tenney v. Gen. Elec. Co.,*118 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-2199.]

(No. 2007-1490

Submitted April 23, 2008

Decided May 14, 2008.)

{¶ 1} The part of the judgment of the court of appeals that reversed the judgment of the trial court is reversed on the authority of *Doe v. First United Methodist Church*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 531, 629 N.E.2d 402, and *Love v. Port*
      *198
      *Clinton*(1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 524 N.E.2d 166. The judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

Thomas A. Sobecki, for appellant.

Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Gregory V. Mersol, Kelly M. King, and Gil Brosky, for appellees.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Exhibit 99.4

                            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 CERBCO,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarterly  period  ending  September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert F. Hartman,  the Vice President,  Secretary and Treasurer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to and for  purposes of 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 results of operations
          of the Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.


November 14, 2002                        /s/Robert F. Hartman
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Robert F. Hartman
                                         Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer