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

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4514]

[[Page 11317]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. 
Gillette, Civ. No. 3: CV-96-1200 (M.D. Pa.), was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on 
February 9, 2001. This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint 
filed by the United States of America against Robert Gillette, pursuant 
to section 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319 (b) 
and (d), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties 
against the Defendant for unlawfully discharging and/or filling 
approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands adjacent to an unnamed tributary of 
Van Auken Creek, in Waymart Borough, Wayne County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed Consent Decree requires the Defendant to pay a civil 
penalty for his unauthorized discharges. Under the proposed Consent 
Decree, the Defendant shall also undertake a supplemental environmental 
project (``SEP'') consisting of the conservation and management of 
wetlands in Tobyhanna Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The 
proposed Consent Decree permanently enjoins the Defendant, or any 
successor of the Defendant, from discharging pollutants into any water 
of the United States at the Site, except in compliance any permits 
required to be obtained by federal, state and local laws, rules or 
regulations.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Please address comments to the Acting 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Attention: Joshua M. Levin, P.O. Box 23986, 
Washington, DC 20026-3986 and should refer to United States v. 
Gillette, DJ Reference No. 90-5-1-6-596.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 
228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108. In addition, the proposed 
Consent Decree may be viewed on the World Wide Web at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/enrd-home.html.

Scott A. Schachter,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 01-4514 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Interlink Global Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Anastasios N. Kyriakides, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and b) The information contained in this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Anastasios N. Kyriakides
                                        Anastasios N. Kyriakides
                                        Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                                        Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
                                        December 20, 2005
947 A.2d 710

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Marcus MAYS, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 22, 2008.

*580
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Does the acquittal of the possession charge here require acquittal of the greater offense of possession with intent to deliver? Should the contrary rule stated and restated by some Pennsylvania cases, which has been criticized in other jurisdictions, be reconsidered by this court because inconsistent verdicts by a judge are not entitled to the same tolerance given to those by juries?
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AVONDALE
INDUSTRIES, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          47,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,144
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209,654
<PP&E>                                         256,221
<DEPRECIATION>                               (129,721)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,531
<BONDS>                                         53,885
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,956
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,190
<SALES>                                        139,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,513
<CGS>                                          120,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,691
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,291
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2423 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2423

  To amend section 3 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to more 
 accurately determine the median income for Rockland County, New York, 
   for purposes of housing programs administered by the Secretary of 
                     Housing and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1993

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 3 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to more 
 accurately determine the median income for Rockland County, New York, 
   for purposes of housing programs administered by the Secretary of 
                     Housing and Urban Development.

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

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF INCOME LIMITS.

That section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in the 4th sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``County'' and inserting ``and 
                Rockland Counties''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``each'' before ``such county''; 
                and
            (2) in the last sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``County'' the 1st place it appears 
                and inserting ``or Rockland Counties''; and
                    (B) by striking ``County'' the 2d place it appears 
                and inserting ``and Rockland Counties''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall issue 
regulations implementing the amendments made by section 1 not later 
than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act. The regulations may not take effect until after 
September 30, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APPLE INC.,

Appellant

v.

COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1324

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00877.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JAMES ANGLIN FLYNN, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 

LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by MARK S. DAVIES, Washington, DC. 

 MARC A. FENSTER, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by NEIL RUBIN,

JAMES S. TSUEI. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 22-1324 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2023
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (STOLL, LINN, and STARK, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

July 14, 2023 

Date

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1324 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2433
DENISE A. MILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MSA INDUSTRIES/KEMPER CARPET, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-323-A) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Denise A. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Francis Joseph Nealon, Eric Carl Lund, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in a Title VII discrimination case. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Miles v. MSA Industries/Kemper Carpet , No. CA-97- 323-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2018

No. 04-17-00854-CR

Jose F. GRANADOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR4413

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(a)(2).

This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right 

of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

We ORDER Appellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this 

court within THIRTY days of the date of this order showing Appellant has the right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no 

amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF NET ASSETS; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000829114
<NAME> PRUCO LIFE OF NEW JERSEY VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,391,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,391,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,391,418
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               272,272
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                113,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            113,227
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,227
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000828747
<NAME> DRUG SCREENING SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          74,453                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,276                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (50,000)                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    347,529                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               628,854                       0
<PP&E>                                         919,106                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               (651,010)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 934,096                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          573,463                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        42,460                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     318,173                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   934,096                       0
<SALES>                                        513,046               1,108,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               513,046               1,108,626
<CGS>                                          281,707                 629,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  378,544                 788,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (147,205)               (309,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (147,205)               (309,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (147,205)               (309,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)                  (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)                  (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 228

Regarding the tariff classification of motor vehicles for the transport of

goods.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. KILDEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

Regarding the tariff classification of motor vehicles for the

transport of goods.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trade Equity Act of

5 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE

7 TRANSPORT OF GOODS.

8 The Additional United States Notes to chapter 87 of

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are
2

• HR 228 IH

1 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

2 note:

3 ‘‘3. Any motor vehicle that is—

4 ‘‘(a) a light truck within the meaning of section

5 523.5 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations

6 (as in effect on October 1, 1990); or

7 ‘‘(b) a light-duty truck within the meaning of such

8 term as defined in section 86.082–2 of title 40 of

9 the Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect July

10 1, 1990);

11 shall be classified under heading 8704.’’.

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendment made by section 2 applies with re14 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

15 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

16 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BHADUR SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71355

Agency No. A078-659-981

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

Bhadur Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

FILED

JUL 06 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71355

a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to

reopen where the motion was filed over five and a half years after the agency’s

final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed

circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90.

Additionally, we decline to consider Singh’s challenge to the immigration

judge’s adverse credibility finding because this court already decided the issue in

Singh v. Mukasey, 305 Fed. Appx. 404 (9th Cir. 2008). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932

F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that under the “law of the case

doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which

another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

In light of these conclusions, we need not address Singh’s remaining

contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.