alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Antonio COLBERT, Appellant v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 10-5301.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2010.

*504Antonio Colbert, Washington, DC, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GARLAND and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 25, 2010, be affirmed. Appellant did not identify any error in the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on appellant’s failure to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
**Exhibit 99.3**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zila, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence J. Batina, 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 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.

| /s/ LAWRENCEJ. BATINA       |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                             |   |
| **Chief Financial Officer** |   |
| **March 17, 2003**          |   |

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

February 6, 2017

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Thursday, February 16, 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 v. John Richards Construction, Docket 

Nos. WEST 2014-440, et al. (Issues include whether the Judge 

erred in concluding that the operator had violated the Mine Safety 

and Health Act by denying an inspector access to a mine for 

inspection purposes.)

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

ARGUMENT: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 129-339

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<CIK>  0000828413
<NAME>  SANITARY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LABS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   721
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           101520
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         25538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7777260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       721
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 25713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (25713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (25713)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
#### JBF RAK LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC Inc., Defendants.

No. 2014-1354.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 25, 2014.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 2, 2014.

Jack Mlawski, Galvin & Mlawski, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephen Carl Tosini, Trial Attorney, Department Of Justice, Devin S. Sikes, Attorney, Department of Commerce Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

David M. Horn, Attorney, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

The United States moves to summarily affirm. JBF RAK LLC opposes.

The sole issue raised in JBF’s opening brief is whether this court’s decision in *Union Steel v. United States,*713 F.3d 1101 (Fed.Cir.2013), should be overruled. Because both parties are in apparent agreement that *Union Steel*controls the outcome of this appeal by a panel of this court, we agree that summary affirmance is appropriate. *See Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994) (Summary affirmance is appropriate where affirmance “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of International Trade is affirmed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3335]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Law 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and 
Education (9487).
    Dates: February 28, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. March 1, 2001; 
8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Office of the Director, 
National Science Foundation, Suite 1205, 4201 Wilson Blvd, 
Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-8002.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations, and 
oversight concerning support for environmental research and 
education.
    Agenda:
February 28--Overview of present portfolio in environmental research 
and education. Discussion of reports by the National Science Board 
and the National Research Council on directions of environmental 
research. Advisory Committee responsibilities and organization.
March 1--Long-term planning for the environmental portfolio. 
Advisory Committee subcommittee meetings on education, 
infrastructure, communication, evaluation and other areas as related 
to environmental research and education.

    Dated: February 2, 2001.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-3335 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10KSB for the period ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in
its  entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                    276,191
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                           3,184,841
<ALLOWANCES>                              (50,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,079,242
<PP&E>                                    204,588
<DEPRECIATION>                            (61,711)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         12,750,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   4,971,119
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   72,257
<OTHER-SE>                              7,706,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            7,778,971
<SALES>                                24,367,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       24,367,112
<CGS>                                  18,289,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          18,289,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        3,218,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         26,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,833,708
<INCOME-TAX>                              926,325
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,907,383
<DISCONTINUED>                            (64,705)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,842,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0.26


</TABLE>
Changes In Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.1 
 CHANGES IN EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
 The following is a summary of changes in
compensation arrangements for our executive officers during the quarter ended June 30, 2006: 
 Effective June 9, 2006, we increased
the base salary of our executive officers by 6% to 11% each. We also provided our executive officers bonuses ranging from approximately 35% to 85% of the executive officers’ annual base salary.
Unassociated Document


    


    EXHIBIT
      4.8

    


    Schedule
      identifying material details of warrant issued by the Company substantially
      identical to the Warrant filed in Exhibit 4.7.

    


    


    
      	WARRANT NO.	 	WARRANT HOLDER 	 	 NUMBER OF SHARES 
	 	 	 	 	 
	2005-58R	 	Wayne Mills	 	225,000
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.40

                           PAYMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTES

                  Agreement dated as of June 9, 1997 by and between Royal
Canadian Foods Corp., a Delaware corporation, with offices at 1004 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ("Borrower") and Fernando Schechter, a resident of
Israel ("Lender").

                                    RECITALS

             WHEREAS, Lender loaned Borrower a total of $178,000 (the "Loans");

             WHEREAS, Lender and Borrower now agree that the principal due
on the Loans shall be paid by the issuance of Common Stock of the Company (the
"Common Stock") to Lender.

             NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other
good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

1. The Loans. Lender loaned Borrower a total of $178,000, and Borrower executed
promissory notes to evidence such loans on the following dates and in the
following amounts:


                    Date                                         Amount
              March 25, 1997                                   $70,000.00
              April 18, 1997                                   $48,220.00
              May 13, 1997                                     $59,780.00
                  Total                                       $178,000.00

2. Payment of Loan Principal. Payment of the Loan shall be made by the issuance
of one share of Common Stock for every $2.00 of the principal balance due on the
Loans. A total of 89,000 shares of Common Stock shall be issued to Lender in
payment of the entire principal balance due on the Loans.

2. Offshore Securities Agreement. The parties hereto intend for the issuance of
the Common Stock to Lender to be in compliance with Regulation S of the
Securities Act of 1933. In view of this, Lender shall sign an Offshore
Securities Agreement for this transaction.

3. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall
constitute a single instrument.




             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date first above written.

ROYAL CANADIAN FOODS CORP.


By:_____________________________
       Sheldon Golumbia, President




By:_____________________________
       Fernando Schechter

                                        1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3737]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Mnagement and Budget (OMB) for clearance in compliance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 
CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections recently 
submitted to OMB.
    1. Office of Research Integrity Educational Program: A Needs 
Assessment--NEW--The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is proposing a 
survey of officials of research institutions to collect information on 
training needs in the areas of the promotion of research integrity and 
the prevention of scientific misconduct. The results of this survey 
will be used to develop a strategic plan for the ORI educational 
program which will be consistent with the recent organizational change 
requiring ORI to place greater emphasis on education and prevention. 
Respondents: Research Institutions; Number of Respondents: 500; Burden 
per Response: 10 minutes; Total Burden: 84 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated 
above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, 
Office of Mnagement and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington DC, 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: January 29, 2001.
Kerry Weems
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 01-3737 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-31-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00594-CV

In Re B.L.B, P.M.B., & C.K.B., minor children

On Appeal from the

22nd District Court of Hays County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 07-0225

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed in part and the 

cause remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 22, 2014
Exhibit 13.1

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 on Form 20-F of Aladdin Knowledge Systems
Ltd. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Jacob (Yanki) Margalit, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
July 2, 2007

| |                                 | 
| | ------------------------------- | 
| | By /s/ Jacob (Yanki)
  Margalit
| |                                 | 
| | Jacob (Yanki) Margalit         
| | Chief Executive Officer        
| | (Principal Executive
  Officer)

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3581]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-221-000]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Transporter Report

February 7, 2001.
    Take notice that on January 31, 2001, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) as required under Section 4.3 of Rage 
Schedules FT and IT of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 
1, tendered for filing its supporting calculations underlying Great 
Lakes' Transporter's Use percentages applicable during the six-month 
period from July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.
    Great Lakes states that copies of the filing are being served upon 
each of Great Lakes' firm customers and the Public Service Commission 
of the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 305.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before February 14, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 308.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3581 Filed 2-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1 The Honorable John C. Minahan, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

## United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6082NE

In re: * * Steven Clifford Molczyk * Susan Kay Molczyk * * Debtors. * * Steven Clifford Molczyk * Appeal from the United Susan Kay Molczyk * States Bankruptcy Court for * the District of Nebraska Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Collection Bureau of * Grand Island, Inc. * * Defendant-Appellee. *

Submitted: November 23, 1999 Filed: December 2, 1999

PER CURIAM.

On October 19, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court 1 entered an order granting in part Plaintiff s’ Motion for Summary Judgment and also granting in part Defendant’s CrossMoti on for Summary Judgment. On November 17, 1999, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s order.2

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) requires the appellant to file a notice of appeal “within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from.” See Luedtke v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. ( In re Luedtke ), 215 B.R. 390, 391 (B.A.P . 8th Cir. 1997). Rule 8002(a)’s ten-day time frame is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Luedtke , 215 B.R. at 391 (citing Crockett v. Lineberger , 205 B.R 580, 581 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997)). Failure to comply with the ten-day time limit deprives the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of jurisdiction. Id.

Because the relevant order was entered on October 19, a timely notice of appeal was required on or before October 29. The Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal, filed on November 17, was unquestionably out of time. Moreover, the Plaintiffs did not request an extension of time for filing their notice of appeal under Rule 8002(c). Accordingly, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs appeal is DISMISSED. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT