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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8164

FREDERICK L. GOODMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; DAVID R. BLUMBERG, Chairman; 

MICHAEL BLOUNT, Commissioner; MARTHA S. KLIMA, Parole 

Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-

cv-01337-RDB)

Submitted: March 11, 2010 Decided: March 31, 2010

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick L. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron, 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Frederick L. Goodman appeals the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint

and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Goodman v. Maryland Parole Comm’n, No. 1:08-cv-01337-RDB (D. Md. 

filed July 15, 2009, entered July 16, 2009; Nov. 12, 2009). We 

take note that the use of victim impact statements in making a 

determination regarding parole and the Open Parole Hearing 

policy did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or Goodman’s 

right to due process. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 7.6 Adverse actions: Removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduced in grade, reduced in pay or furloughed for 30 days or less. ( a ) *Policy.* A GAO employee may be removed, suspended for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough for 30 days or less for such cause as will promote the efficiency of GAO. Furloughed means placing an employee in a temporary status without duties and pay because of lack of work or funds or other nondisciplinary reasons.
( b ) *Employee entitlement.* An employee against whom an action is proposed under this section is entitled to— ( 1 ) At least 30 days' advance written notice, unless there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed, stating the specific reasons for the proposed action,
( 2 ) A reasonable time to answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documents in support of the answer.
( 3 ) Be represented by an attorney or other representative; and
( 4 ) A written decision and the specific reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date.
( c ) *Appeals.* After administrative remedies have been exhausted, an employee against whom an action is taken under this section is entitled to appeal to the GAO Personnel Appeals Board.
( d ) *Documentation.* Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer of the employee if written, a summary thereof when made orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any order affecting an action covered by this section, together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by Personnel and shall be furnished to the GAO Personnel Appeals Board upon its request and to the employee affected upon the employee's request.
( e ) *Nonapplicability.* This section does not apply to— ( 1 ) Employees who are serving a trial period under an initial appointment or who has not completed 1 year of current continuous employment under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less.
( 2 ) A suspension or removal of an employee in the interests of national security.
( 3 ) A reduction in force.
( 4 ) The reduction in grade of a supervisor or manager who has not completed the probationary period.
( 5 ) A reduction in grade or removal for unacceptable performance under part 4.
( 6 ) An action ordered by the GAO Personnel Appeals Board.
### Table 1: Conference Call Attendees and Contact Information **Name Affiliation**  **Interest Em** **ail** Allan Rilling, ABB Vender/Tester allan.j.rilling@ca.abb.com Bob Davis, AirGas Gas Vendor bob.davis@airgas.com Musa Zada Altech Instrument Vendor Malik Hatar Altech Instrument Vendor Bob Vantuyl, Ash Grove Cement Facility bob.vantuyl@ashgrove Andy Edwards Ash Grove Cement Facility Deseri Haggard Calportland Facility Ty Smith Cemtech Environmental Kieth Crab Cemtech Environmental Joe Aldina, Covanta Energy Facility jAldina@covantaenergy.com Edul Chikhliwala EcoChem Analytics Instrument Vendor chikli@ecochem.biz Laura Kinner Emission Monitoring Inc. Tester lkinner@mindspring.com Jim Peeler Emission Monitoring Inc. Tester jimpeeler@mindspring.com Ray Merrill EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTGRegulatory Agency merrill.raymond@epa.gov
Jason Dewees EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTGRegulatory Agency dewees.jason@ epa.gov Robin Segall EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTGRegulatory Agency segall.robin@@epa.gov
BarrettParker EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG Regulatory Agency parker.barrett@epa.gov Rachael Agnew EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG Regulatory Agency agnew.rachael@epa.gov Collin Boswell EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG Regulatory Agency boswell.collin @epa.gov Gerri Garwood EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG Regulatory Agency garwood.gerri@epa.gov Candace Sorrell EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTGRegulatory Agency sorrell.candace@epa.gov
Luc Sevrette Gasmet Equip Vender luc.sevrette@gasmet.com Andre Hegre? Gas Technologies, Finland Equip Vendor Hector Ybanez, Holcim Inc. Facility hybanez@gmail.com Matthew Rutledge Lafarge Facility Mike Hayes Linde Gas Gas Vendor Barbara Marshick MKS Instruments Equip Vender Barbara_Marshik@mksinst.com Fred Grunewald MKS Instruments Inc. Equip Vendor fred.grunewald@mksinst.com Martin Spartz, Prism Analytical

technology Tester m.spartz@pati

-air.com Ralph Roberson RMB Consulting Tester Roberson@mb

-consulting.com Dan Kietzer Sick

-Maihak Instrument Vendor dan.kietzer@sickmaihak.com Kita Dieter Thermof isher Equip Vender dieter.kita@thermofisher.com Stephen Johnson Thermofishter Inc. Equip Vendor Stephen.Johnson@thermosisher. com James Willis Titan America Facility jwillis@titanamerica.com Jeff Harrington Tyco Environmental

Systems Gary Catchatory Tyco Environmental

Systems Michael Corvese Thermofisher Equip Vendor Michael.corvese@thermofisher. com Frank Duckett Thermofisher Equip Vendor Frank.duckett@thermofisher.co m Ashmud Patel Ethyl Smith Automation Henry Veger CEM Specialties EquipVendor Dave Vigowax Marantee Tile
#### The City of New York, Appellant, v. New York City Railway Company, Respondent (Car License C-12).

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.
PD-1032&1033-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/10/2015 5:01:20 PM

Accepted 8/11/2015 4:32:31 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



|                                 |  |                                       
|-------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                                 | 
|Subsidiary                       |  | State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                 | 
|Motient
Holdings Inc.            |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|Motient
Communications Inc.      |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|Motient
Services Inc.            |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|Motient
License Inc.             |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|MVH
Holdings Inc.                |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|Motient
Ventures Holding Inc.    |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
Networks Inc.          |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
Global Ltd.            |  | Bermuda                               
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
National Services Inc. |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
License Inc.           |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
Europe Limited         |  | United Kingdom                        
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
Holdings Inc.          |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|TerreStar
1.4 Holdings LLC       |  | Delaware                              
|                                 | 
|4506901
Canada Inc.              |  | Canada
# Prescott_Master_Data

# 1910WY

# 1911WY

# 1912WY

# 1913WY

# 1914WY

# 1915WY

# 1916WY

# 1917WY

# 1918WY

# 1919WY

# 1920WY

# 1921WY

# 1922WY

# 1923WY

# 1924WY

# 1925WY

# 1926WY

# 1927WY

# 1928WY

# 1929WY

# 1930WY

# 1931WY

# 1932WY

# 1933WY

# 1934WY

# 1935WY

# 1936WY

# 1937WY

# 1938WY

# 1939WY

# 1940WY

# 1941WY

# 1942WY

# 1943WY

# 1944WY

# 1945WY

# 1946WY

# 1947WY

# 1948WY

# 1949WY

# 1950WY

# 1951WY

# 1952WY

# 1953WY

# 1954WY

# 1955WY

# 1956WY

# 1957WY

# 1958WY

# 1959WY

# 1960WY

# 1961WY

# 1962WY

# 1963WY

# 1964WY

# 1965WY

# 1966WY

# 1967WY

# 1968WY

# 1969WY

# 1970WY

# 1971WY

# 1972WY

# 1973WY

# 1974WY

# 1975WY

# 1976WY

# 1977WY

# 1978WY

# 1979WY

# 1980WY

# 1981WY

# 1982WY

# 1983WY

# 1984WY

# 1985WY

# 1986WY

# 1987WY

# 1988WY

# 1989WY

# 1990WY

# 1991WY

# 1992WY

# 1993WY

# 1994WY

# 1995WY

# 1996WY

# 1997WY

# 1998WY

# 1999WY

# 2000WY

# 2001WY

# 2002WY

# 2003WY

# 2004WY

# 2005WY

# 2006WY

# 2007WY
1

Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Alford CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DELBERT WARREN ALFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A167027

 (Mendocino County

 Super. Ct. No. 

22CR02906)

Defendant Delbert Warren Alford appeals from a judgment and 

sentence entered on his no contest plea to one count of failure to register as a 

convicted sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.015, subd. (a).) The court 

thereafter imposed the negotiated disposition, sentencing him to a 16-month 

sentence. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for 

an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any 

issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or 

modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a 

supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon independent review of the 

record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm.

Penal Code section 1237.5 generally precludes an appeal from a 

judgment of conviction after a plea of no contest or guilty unless the 

defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of 
2

probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and 

seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section 

1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) post-plea sentencing issues. (People v. 

Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 

773, 780.) Defendant requested, but was denied a certificate of probable 

cause. He did not file a suppression motion, and the court made no search 

and seizure ruling.

Therefore, our review is of the post-plea record. It shows defendant 

was ably represented by counsel. Defendant completed and executed a 

written felony plea form. The court determined defendant’s no contest plea 

was knowingly and intelligently made. There was no abuse of discretion in 

sentencing, and the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the 

negotiated disposition. (See People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 679 

[“ ‘ “severity of the sentence and the placing of defendant on probation rest in 

the sound discretion of the trial court” ’ ”].) The court properly ordered 

custody credits and imposed fines and fees. 

After a review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm the 

judgment.
3

_________________________

Banke, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Humes, P.J.

_________________________

Bowen, J.*

*Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

A167027, People v. Alford
### §504. Powers of Foundation

The corporation—

(a) Shall have perpetual succession;

(b) May sue and be sued;

(c) May adopt a corporate seal and alter it at pleasure;

(d) May adopt and alter bylaws;

(e) May appoint officers and agents;

(f) May acquire by purchase, devise, bequest, gift, or otherwise, and hold, encumber, convey, or otherwise dispose of, such real and personal property as may be necessary or appropriate for its corporate purposes;

(g) May invest and reinvest the principal and interest of its funds; and

(h) Generally, may do any and all lawful acts necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes for which the corporation is created.

(June 10, 1930, ch. 440, §4, 46 Stat. 540.)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of S1 Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:
(a)  the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2005 filed on the date hereofwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and (b)  information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.         /s/ Jaime W. Ellertson   Jaime W. Ellertson   Chief Executive Officer   
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchangecommission or its staff upon request.
May 9, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,657,392
<SECURITIES>                                 6,518,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                  584,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,725
<INVENTORY>                                    460,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,354,582
<PP&E>                                       1,539,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 893,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,453,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,404,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,921
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,035,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,453,610
<SALES>                                      2,135,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,135,981
<CGS>                                        2,006,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,006,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,802,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (331,084)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,335,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,335,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,335,414)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13666-13667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,582]


General Motors Corporation; Powertrain Flint North; Including On-
Site Leased Workers From Allegis Group Services, Securitas, Knight 
Management and URS Corporation, Flint, MI; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on July 9, 2010, applicable to workers of General Motors Corporation, 
Powertrain Flint North, including on-site leased workers from Allegis 
Group Service, Flint, Michigan. The Notice was published in the Federal 
Register on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43558). The Notice was amended on 
November 18, 2010 to include on-site leased workers from Securitas and 
Knight Management. The amended Notice was published in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 76038-76039)
    At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of component parts (transmission and engine 
components and deck and door locks).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm.
    The company reports that workers leased from URS Corporation were 
employed on-site at the Flint, Michigan location of General Motors 
Corporation, Powertrain Flint North. The Department has determined that 
these workers were sufficiently under the control of General Motors 
Corporation, Powertrain Flint North to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from URS Corporation working 
on-site at the Flint, Michigan location of General Motors Corporation, 
Powertrain Flint North.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,582 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of General Motors Corporation, Powertrain Flint 
North, including on-site leased workers from Allegis Group Services, 
Securitas, Knight Management, and URS Corporation, Flint, Michigan, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after October 2, 2008,

[[Page 13667]]

through July 9, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with 
total or partial separation from employment on the date of 
certification through two years from the date of certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2011.
Elliott S. Kushner
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-5655 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
MICHAEL STEVE COX, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, 

Respondent. 

MICHAEL STEVE COX, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, 

Respondent. 

No. 62079 

6208W 

ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITIONS 

These are seven original proper person petitions for 

extraordinary relief. The petitions are not consolidated. 

Having considered these petitions and supporting documents, 

we conclude that petitioner's arguments lack merit and that our 

intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Accordingly, 

we deny the petitions. NRAP 21(b)(1); NRAP 21(c). 

Additionally, as demonstrated by the this order, petitioner has 

filed numerous meritless proper person petitions in this court seeking 

extraordinary writ relief and has further filed a number of similarly 

meritless appeals in this court. See Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60056, 

Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60151, Cox v. Bannister, Docket No. 60637, 

Cox v. State, Docket No. 61322. We caution appellant that continued filing 

of such meritless petitions and appeals may result in restrictions on his 

ability to file papers in this court in forma pauperis. See Jordan v. State, 

Dept. of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005), 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 

2 

1947A 
abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 

Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008). 

It is so ORDERED.' 

/ '114A 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Michael Steve Cox 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

White Pine County Clerk 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'In each of these writ petitions, this court has received petitioner's 

requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We direct the clerk of this 

court to file the May 17, 2011, and the June 28, 2011, motions in Docket 

No. 58292; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60404; the March 19, 

2012, motion in Docket No. 60406; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket 

No. 60407; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60409; the November 

20, 2012, motion in Docket No. 62079; and the November 20, 2012, motion 

in Docket No. 62080. Because petitioner was granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in each of these writ petitions, no action is required on 

these motions. 

3
§ 700.181 Eligibility. ( a ) *Basic eligibility requirements.* A certified eligible head of household who established his/her residency requirements in the area partitioned to the tribe of which he/she is not a member, is eligible for the replacement housing payment specified at § 700.183(a).
( b ) *Other rules and requirements.* A payment under this subpart E is subject to the other applicable rules and requirements of these regulations.