alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Electronic Notification

When filing documents through e-CMS, you will receive any of the following three types of 

email notifications.

1. File successfully uploaded. After you upload a document with e-CMS, you will receive an 

automatic email informing you that your document was successfully uploaded to the system 

and is pending review. As soon as the review is completed, you will receive another notification 

by email, which will inform you that the document was either successfully received or rejected.

2. FMSHRC document successfully received. The Commission successfully receives a document 

on the date of uploading if there were no errors in the submission of the document. 

• Submission errors include, but are not limited to, incorrect docket numbers and failure 

to upload the document intended for filing. 

If there were no errors in the submission of your document, you will receive an email informing 

you that your document was successfully received. In these circumstances, you should consider 

the date of successful receipt by the Commission to be the date that you initially successfully 

uploaded the document.

For example: A party uploads a file at 6:15 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18, 2014. The party 

receives an email stating that the file was successfully uploaded. The Commission’s Docket 

Office staff comes in the next day, and logs into the e-CMS system at 8:45 a.m., seeing that the 

file was uploaded at 6:15 p.m. the prior evening and that there were no errors in the 

submission of the document. The Docket Office employee is not able to send an email to the 

party until the next day, Thursday, March 20, 2014. The party receives an email on March 20,

2014, stating that the party’s document was successfully received. The date of successful 

receipt by the Commission is March 18, 2014.

3. FMSHRC document rejected. When you have uploaded a document but have made errors in 

your submission, you will receive an email informing you that your document has been 

rejected. The email will describe the error that you have made. In order to have your 

document successfully received, you will have to upload the document again and correct your 

error.
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3613 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 202 Trumbull Street in Saint Clair, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Jeffrey Robert Standfest Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3613 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL JEFFREY ROBERT STANDFEST 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 202 Trumbull Street in Saint 

5 Clair, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Corporal Jeffrey Robert Standfest Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Jeffrey Rob11 ert Standfest Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 1, 

2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Troy V. CLEVELAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James N. CROSS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7222.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.

Troy V. Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*816Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Troy V. Cleveland, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Cleveland v. Cross,*No. 5:09-cv-00120-FPS-JES, 2010 WL 3120055 (ND.W.Va. Aug. 9, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Tina M. FAKE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7359.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2011.

Tina M. Fake, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tina M. Fake appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) habeas petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Fake’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Fake has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Further, we deny Fake’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with *772oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

October 13, 2017

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 26, 2017

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor on behalf of McGary et al. v. The 

Marshall County Coal Company et al., Docket Nos. WEVA 2015-

583-D et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in requiring 

the operators’ Chief Executive Officer to personally read a 

prepared statement at the mines in question.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO

MEETING: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
      10.5

     

    PROMISSORY
      NOTE EXTENSION AND WAIVER

    


     

    WHEREAS
      AFTERMARKET ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under
      the laws of the state of Nevada (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"),
      entered into that certain Promissory Note (the “Note”) with Jeff
      W. Holmes,
      the
      registered Holder (“Holder”) on August 17, 2006; and

     

    WHEREAS
      the Holder has loaned the Company $15,000 under the Note; and 

     

    WHEREAS
      both parties have fulfilled their obligations to one another up to and including
      the date written below; and

     

    WHEREAS
      the Note has matured and the sums loaned along with any and all interest due
      thereunder are hereby due and payable.

     

    AGREED;

    


    	1.  
              	
            The
              Maturity Date is hereby extended to August 17, 2008;
              and

          


    	2.   
             	
            In
              exchange for the below agreed to payment commitment, Holder hereby
              waives
              its right to demand a prepayment in the event that the Company raises
              from
              investors, other than current shareholders, a minimum of fifty thousand
              dollars ($50,000) in the form of equity or debt
              financing.

          


    


    	a.   
             	
            Company
              hereby agrees that:

          


    


    	i.      
              	
            If
              the Company raises a minimum of $75,000, the Company hereby agrees
              to pay
              Holder $5,000 against the outstanding balance of the Note and any accrued
              interest. 

          


    	ii.     
              	
            If
              the Company raises $250,000 or more, the Company hereby agrees to pay
              Holder $10,000 against the outstanding balance of the Note and any
              accrued
              interest.

          


    	iii.    
              	
            Any
              unpaid principal or interest due under the Note shall be paid on the
              Maturity Date or as otherwise agreed between the
              parties.

          


    


    	3.  
              	
            All
              other terms of the Note are in full force and
              effect.

          


     

    DATED
      effective as of the 17th day of August, 2007.

     

     

    
      	AFTERMARKET ENTERPRISES, INC.	JEFF W. HOLMES
	 	 
	
              By /s/ Adam Anthony

              Adam Anthony, President

            	
              By /s/ Jeff W. Holmes

              Jeff W. Holmes
EXHIBIT 32.02

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, 2008, 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald J. Domanico                                              
|Date: August 11, 2008 |  |     |  | Ronald J. Domanico Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

May 2, 2016

s0418 

# Order

Clerk May 2, 2016

149791

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149791

COA: 319527

Saginaw CC: 99

- 017628

- FC

JAMES WASHINGTON, III

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 28, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Montgomery

v Louisiana

, cert gtd 575 US ___; 135 S Ct 1546; 191 L Ed 2d 635 (2015). On order of

the Court, the case having been decided on January 25, 2016, Montgomery v Louis iana

, 577 US ___; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016), the application is again considered

and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the

sentence of the Saginaw Circuit Court on the defendant’s first

- degree murder co nviction,

and we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing on that conviction pursuant

to MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. See Montgomery v Louisiana, supra ; Miller v

Alabama , 567 US ___; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012).

We do not retain jur isdiction.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MOHAMMADI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30079.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*250Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Catherine Lynskey Gris-ham, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dennis Carroll, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John Mohammadi appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bulk cash smuggling, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5332 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mohammadi contends that the district court procedurally erred by denying his request for a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err by denying Mohammadi’s request for a downward adjustment. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006); *see also United States v. Hursh,*217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000) (the fact that a defendant acted as a courier does not mean his role was minor).

Mohammadi also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his individual circumstances. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2010- PA

- 00704, s t y l ed I n t h e I n te r e st o f S .L .L ., A C h ild , i n t he 1 3 1 st J ud i cial D i s t r i ct Co ur t , B exa r Co un t y , T exa s , t he H onorabl e John D

. G abri el pre s i di ng . H owever , t he order c o m p la ine d o f w a s sig n e d b y the H o n o ra b le A sso c ia te J u d g e R ic h a rd G a rc ia , p re sid ing ju d g e o f t h e C h ild re n ’s C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s. 

### i i i i i i



# MEM ORAND UMOP INION No. 04-10-00334- CV IN RE S.L., A C hil d Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 

## PER C URIAM Sitt ing: Phylis J . Speedlin, Justice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: June 2, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On April 30, 2010, re lator filed a petition for writ of m andamus. Ba sed on the re cord be fore us, we c onclude r elator has not established the trial c ourt clea rly abused its discre tion. Se eIn re De p’ t of Fa mi ly &Prote c tiv eSe rv s. , 273 S.W .3d 637, 643 (Tex. 2009) (providingmandamus re lief is p ro pe r to c or

re c t a c le ar a bu se of dis c re tio n) ; In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004 ) (o rig . proce eding ). Ac cording ly , the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. T EX 

## . R. A PP 

## . P. 52.8(a)

. PER CU RIAM
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2024

NO. 03-23-00508-CR

Daniel Keith Smith, Sr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Exhibit 32.2



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 InterTAN, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I James P. Maddox, Vice President and Chief Financial 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/    JAMES P. MADDOX                    
|                                          
|James P. Maddox                           
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



May
19, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary information extracted from the Financial
Statements of the September 30, 1999 Form 10-Q of Aircraft Income Partners and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6,172,187
<SECURITIES>                                   1,213,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,445,204
<PP&E>                                         5,846,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,683,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,608,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            139,702
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,468,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,608,014
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,890,551
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    710,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,071,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (779,128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (779,128)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (779,128)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0



</TABLE>
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 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   FMSHRC mourns the passing of Judge Zane Gill              

#   FMSHRC mourns the passing of Judge Zane Gill

We are saddened to report the passing of our esteemed colleague, Judge Zane Gill.  Judge Gill worked out of our satellite office in Denver, CO.  He will be greatly missed by all who knew him.  For questions regarding cases that were before Judge Gill, please contact Kevin VanDyke at kvandyke@fmshrc.govor law clerk Kirsten Brown at kbrown@fmshrc.gov.

##### 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