alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,220
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       400
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
FEDERAL 1\'IIKE SAFETY Al\:D HEAVl'H 1-n•:VIJ•;'\V C0:\1i\llSSIO~ 

December 2, 2009 

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold 

United States Senate 

506 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Feingold: 

Pursuant to Section 837 of Public Law 109-115, Title VIII, dated November 30, 2005, the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) hereby provides the following 

information as outlined in the attached report for fiscal year 2009. 

The report indicates that, to the best of our knowledge, FMSHRC procured no supplies from 

entities that manufacture articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States during fiscal 

year 2009. This report will be posted on FMSHRC's website at www.fmshrc.gov. 

Ifyou have any questions, please contact me or have your staff contact Lisa M. Boyd, Executive 

Director, who may be reached at (202) 434-9905. 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 

:!dto~ 

(;()I N J·; \\· .JJ<:H S J.:\' t\\'E, N\\' • Stri' I' J•: !1;';00 • \\',\:o-;IIJ="'(;'J' O ,..,., J)( ' ~0001-2021 

.,.F: .. ,, ''" o ;-.; •·: : ~o2- 1 a-1-n!Joo 
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 


Buy American Act Report 


Acquisition of Articles, Materials, and Supplies 


Manufactured Outside and Inside the United States 


Fiscal Year 2009 


A. Dollar value of any articles, materials, or supplies purchased that were 

manufactured outside of the United States. 

B. Itemized list of all waivers granted with respect to such articles, materials, or 

supplies under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.). 

C. 	Exception use to purchase articles, materials, or supplies manufactured 

outside the United States: 

D. 	Summary: 

• 	 Total procurement funds expended on articles, materials, and supplies 

manufactured inside the United States: $ 224,248.61 

• 	 Total procurement funds expended on articles, materials, and supplies 

manufactured outside the United States: $Q.
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**
     We have issued our report dated September 9, 2003 (except for Note F, asto which the date is September 16, 2003), accompanying the consolidatedfinancial statements, and have incorporated herein by reference or included inthe Annual Report of Versar, Inc., on Form 10-K, for the year ended June 30,2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report inthe Registration Statement of Versar, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-106111) datedJune 13, 2003.
/S/ Grant Thornton LLCGrant Thornton LLC
Vienna, Virginia
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEBER 24, 2015

NO. 03-15-00422-CV

Shakeel Mustafa, Appellant

v.

Felix Rippy, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING --

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on June 19, 2015. Having reviewed the 

record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. We therefore order that 

appellant’s motion for rehearing is dismissed as moot; that the opinion and judgment dated 

August 21, 2015, are withdrawn; and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lee TORIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7419.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Charles Lee Torian, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lee Torian appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Torian,*No. 4:01-cr-70057-NKM-1 (WD.Va. Aug. 24, 2015). 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.*
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Borders, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Borders,*118 Ohio St.3d 199, 2008-Ohio-2197.]

(No. 2007-2326

Submitted May 6, 2008

Decided May 14, 2008.)

Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard A. Termuh-len, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Shaw & Miller and Mark J. Miller, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Simpkins,*117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.

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

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
Opinion filed May 7, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-15-00097-CR

__________

IN RE ROBERT CONNELL MORGAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Robert Connell Morgan, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. He requests that we require Candace Jones, the district clerk 

of Scurry County, to perform her ministerial duties relating to an application for writ 

of habeas corpus that Relator asserts he filed in the trial court pursuant to TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014). Relator asserts that Jones has failed

to transmit his Article 11.07 application to the Court of Criminal Appeals. We 

dismiss Relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

According to his petition, Relator has already filed an Article 11.07 

application in the trial court. Because Relator has an Article 11.07 application 

pending, we have no jurisdiction to grant the relief that he requests in the petition 
2

filed in our court. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 

115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indicating that the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction when an Article 11.07 application is pending). 

We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining 

to proceedings under Article 11.07. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Should an applicant find it necessary 

to complain about the processing of an Article 11.07 application for writ of habeas 

corpus, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Benson v. District Clerk, 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 

Furthermore, a court of appeals has no general writ power over a person other 

than a judge of a district or county court unless issuance of the writ is necessary to 

enforce the court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). 

A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district 

clerk unless necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. In re 

Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. 

proceeding). Relator has not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district 

clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction 

to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

Relator’s petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

May 7, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas M. BROWN, Jr., a.k.a. Toon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-11822

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2010.

Thomas M. Brown, Jr., Jesup, GA, pro se.

*461James C. Stuchell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Brown, Jr. appeals from the district court’s denial of his pro *se*motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As a federal prisoner serving a term of imprisonment for a crack cocaine offense, Brown’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which together with Amendment 713, retroactively provides for a 2-level reduction to base offense levels applicable to crack-cocaine offenses. The district court denied Brown’s motion on the ground that Amendment 706 did not lower the base offense level (and thus the resulting guideline range) upon which his original sentence was based.1

At the original sentencing, the district court determined that Brown had a base offense level of 30 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The court determined that Brown had an offense level of 32 under the Drug Quantity Table in § 2Dl.l(c). However, because the court determined that Brown was entitled to a role-reduction, it decreased that offense level by 2 under what is now § 201.1(a)(5). See U.S.S.G. § 201.1(a)(5) (providing that the “base offense level” shall be the offense level specified in the Drug Quantity Table, “except that if (A) the defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role); and (B) the base offense level under [the Drug Quantity Table] is ... 32, decrease by 2 levels”).2 Thus, Brown’s base offense level became 30, and the court sentenced him within the resulting guideline range.

Amendment 706 does not affect the guideline range upon which Brown’s sentence was based because his base offense level would remain 30. While Amendment 706 would reduce his offense level under the Drug Quantity Table from 32 to 30, that 2-level reduction would negate the 2-level reduction under § 2Dl.l(a)(5), as the latter reduction does not apply where the drug-quantity offense level is below 32. Thus, Brown’s base offense level would remain 30, and the guideline range upon which his sentence was based would likewise remain unaffected. As a result, the district court lacked authority to grant Brown a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Jones,*548 F.3d 1366, 1368-69 (11th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. “We review *de novo*a district court's conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)." *United States v. Jones,*548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir.2008).

2

. This provision was located at U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 (a)(3) at the time of sentencing.
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Secured Income L.P. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Paul
Richman, Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman Resources Corporation, a
general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as
adopted pursuant to (S) 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/ Richard Paul Richman
----------------------------------
Richard Paul Richman
Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman
Resources Corporation, a general partner of
the Company
March 31, 2003
##### 



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 Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Roger J. Klatt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /S/ Roger J. Klatt 
 
 Date March 12, 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>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MUTUAL RISK
MANGEMENT LTD.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000826918
<NAME> MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.
<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
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           333,990
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 333,990
<CASH>                                         119,868
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             380,766
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          25,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,785,459
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                456,224
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            118,219
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           44,070
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                126,645
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,952
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           393
<OTHER-SE>                                     216,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,785,459
<PREMIUMS>                                      17,952
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,067
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (774)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  27,472
<BENEFITS>                                       7,663
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,605
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            19,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,129
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,284
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,844
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
*Order Entered June 18, 2012:*

#### People v Brantley,

Docket No. 298488.

Reported at 296 Mich App 546.

The Court orders that the concurring and dissenting opinion in this case, which was issued for publication on May 17, 2012, be amended to correct a clerical error.

The first and second sentence of the first full paragraph (on page 3) * shall read: “In reaching its conclusion, I believe the majority re-writes the legislation to say something it does not. The majority would reform the statute to say what the majority believes it ought to say rather than what the legislature has clearly and unequivocally stated.” In all other respects, the May 17, 2012, concurring and dissenting opinion remains unchanged.

*

 Reference to slip opinion. See 296 Mich App 546, 562-563—Reporter.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31951]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 4.625 (4 \5/8\) percent for the January-March quarter 
of FY 2002.

LeAnn M. Oliver,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31951 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6943-4] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held February 21-23, 2001 at the Hotel Washington, Washington, DC. The CHPAC was created to advise the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of regulations, guidance and policies to address children's environmental health. 

# DATES:

Wednesday, February 21, 2001, Work Group meetings only; plenary sessions Thursday, February 22 and Friday, February 23, 2001. 

# ADDRESSES:

Hotel Washington, 515 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Paula R. Goode, Office of Children's Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2702. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Agenda Items

The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. The Science and Research Work Group will meet from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the 21st Century Work Group will meet from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 21, 2001. The plenary CHPAC will meet on Thursday, February 22 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with a public comment period at 5:00 p.m., and on Friday, February 23 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

The plenary session will open with introductions and a review of the agenda and objectives for the meeting. Agenda items include highlights of the Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) activities and reports from the Work Groups, speakers on States' children's environmental health activities, and a status report on the longitudinal cohort study on children (as found in the Child Health Act of 2000). 

Dated: February 1, 2001. 

Paula R. Goode, 

Designated Federal Officer, Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. 01-3283 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P