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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1716 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1716

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, July 11), 1994

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Act of January 26, 1915, establishing Rocky Mountain 
National Park, to provide for the protection of certain lands in Rocky 
 Mountain National Park and along North St. Vrain Creek and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NORTH ST. VRAIN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS.

    The Act of January 26, 1915, establishing Rocky Mountain National 
Park (38 Stat. 798; 16 U.S.C. 191 and following), is amended by adding 
the following new section at the end thereof:

``SEC. 5. NORTH ST. VRAIN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS.

    ``Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor any other Federal 
agency or officer may approve or issue any permit for, or provide any 
assistance for, the construction of any new dam, reservoir, or 
impoundment on any segment of North St. Vrain Creek or its tributaries 
within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park or on the main 
stem of North St. Vrain Creek downstream to the point at which the 
creek crosses the elevation 6,550 feet above mean sea level. Nothing in 
this subsection shall be construed to prevent the issuance of any 
permit for the construction of a new water gaging station on North St. 
Vrain Creek at the point of its confluence with Coulson Gulch.''.

SEC. 2. ENCOURAGEMENT OF EXCHANGES.

    (a) Lands Inside Rocky Mountain National Park.--Promptly following 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall seek to 
acquire by donation or exchange those lands within the boundaries of 
Rocky Mountain National Park owned by the city of Longmont, Colorado, 
that are referred to in section 111(d) of the Act commonly referred to 
as the ``Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980'' (Public Law 96-560; 94 Stat. 
3272; 16 U.S.C. 192b-9(d)).
    (b) Other Lands.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall immediately 
and actively pursue negotiations with the city of Longmont, Colorado, 
concerning the city's proposed exchange of lands owned by the city and 
located in and near Coulson Gulch for other lands owned by the United 
States. The Secretary shall report to Congress 2 calendar years after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter on the 
progress of such negotiations until negotiations are complete.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clinton Stanley MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a Howard L. Eastwood, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-6910.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.

*810Clinton Stanley Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Carol M. Marx, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 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:

Clinton Stanley Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Matthews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

*811Additionally, we construe Matthews’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Matthews’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.*
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2014 of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.








Dated: October 9, 2014





/s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. Wills, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 LODGENET ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of LodgeNet.
  /s/ Scott C. PetersenScott C. PetersenChief Executive Officer/s/ Gary H. Ritondaro

Gary H. RitondaroChief Financial Officer
 LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation
    
    Form 10-K 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Brunswick
Technologies, Inc.'s unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for
the three months ended March 31, 1998 and March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements. Amounts are rounded to
thousands (except for per share amounts).
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             484
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                        49
<INVENTORY>                                      4,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,921
<PP&E>                                          10,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,750
<OTHER-SE>                                          64
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,378
<SALES>                                          9,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,048
<CGS>                                            6,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (119)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    653
<INCOME-TAX>                                       235
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</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 
-                   Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC              

#   Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC

On February 10, 2022, the Commission issued its decision in *Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company,*Docket No. PENN 2019-0008.   

Commission- Decision (Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC) PENN 2019-0008.pdf

##### 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000827164
<NAME> EXHIBITRONIX, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,864
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,428
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,292)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,632)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 15, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-966 Lower Tribunal No. 14-27903

________________ 

### Lucila Murphy , Appellant,
vs. 

### Lenis Osorio, et al. , Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge. Law Office of Laurence A. Wanshel, P.A., and Laurence A. Wanshel, for appellant. Coral Way Law Center, and Miguel San Pedro, for appellees. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. Murphy v. Osorio, 299 So. 3d 446, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), reh’g denied (Jan. 29, 2020) (“[I]t is undisputed that the trial court ruled that there was a lack of evidence to support the Defendants’ counterclaim.”); Espriella v. Delvalle, 844 So. 2d 674, 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (confirming that there is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of deeds, and that presumption will prevail unless the party challenging the deed overcomes it by clear, strong and convincing evidence) (citing Howell v. Fiore, 210 So. 2d 253, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,326,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  369,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,730,000
<PP&E>                                       1,091,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,078,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,645,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,830,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,078,000
<SALES>                                        639,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               639,000
<CGS>                                           99,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,997,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,657,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,363,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,278,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,278,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1735 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1735

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide additional penalties 
                        for drive by shootings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1993

  Mr. Gutierrez (for himself and Ms. Norton) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide additional penalties 
                        for drive by shootings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Drive By Shooting Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 36. Drive-by Shootings
    ``Whoever, from within a motor vehicle that has been transported, 
shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce, discharges a 
firearm (as defined in section 921 of this title) and thereby causes a 
grave risk to the life of another person shall--
            ``(1) if death results, be fined under this title or 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both; and
            ``(2) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
        30 years, in any other case.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``36. Drive-by Shootings.''.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.103

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount:             $267,280.50                         Date:  December 15, 1995

     For value received, I, Donald A. Livingston (the "Maker"), an employee of
Environmental Power Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
promise to pay the Company ON DEMAND the principal amount of Two Hundred
Sixty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars and 50/100 ($267,280.50) with
interest (computed on the basis of a 360 day year of twelve 30-day months)
payable from the date hereof on the unpaid balance of such principal amount,
such interest to be payable monthly.

     The interest payable on this Note shall track the Applicable Federal
"short-term monthly" Rate as defined in Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended.

     As security for payments to be made by the Maker pursuant to this Note, the
Company shall retain custody of, and a security interest in, the certificate or
certificates representing 1,038,244 Shares of the Company's Common Stock, such
security interest to lapse at such time as all of the obligations of the Maker
under this Note have been satisfied in full or the Note has been canceled.

     The Company shall have full recourse against the Maker for collection and
payment of the debt evidenced by this Note and may seek personal judgment
against the Maker for payment of this Note.

     All or any part of the principal and accrued interest may be prepaid at
anytime without the payment of any penalty or premium.

     In case any payment herein provided shall not be paid when due, the Maker
further promises to pay all costs at collection, including all attorney's fees.

     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of New Hampshire and shall have the effect of a sealed instrument.

     The Maker and all endorsers and guarantors of this Note hereby waive
presentment, demand, notice of nonpayment, protest and all other demands and
notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance or enforcement
of the Note.

                                                       Maker

                                                      /s/ Donald A. Livingston
                                                      ------------------------
                                                      Donald A. Livingston
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

March 23, 2017

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Thursday,April 13,2017

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillconsiderandactuponthefollowinginopen

session:*SecretaryofLaborv.ArnoldStone,Inc.,*DocketNo.CENT2016-95-M(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinconcludingthataviolationinvolvingaloaderwithadefectivesafetylockoutdidnotresultfromanunwarrantablefailuretocomply.)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthismeetingwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.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) 708-9300for TDD

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

 

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

ARGUMENT:1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode:129-339

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel