alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don Lamont WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4194.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 23, 2002.

Decided May 14, 2002.

*439Rico Moore, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Don Lamont Wilkerson appeals his conviction on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). Wilkerson sought to suppress evidence that was seized from his apartment pursuant to a search warrant. When the district court denied his motion to suppress, Wilkerson entered a conditional guilty plea to the offense, preserving his right to appeal the district court’s ruling. He was sentenced to ninety-six months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.

We review de novo the district court’s conclusions on probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. *United States v. Wilhelm,*80 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir.1996). Under *Franks v. Delaware,*438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), a defendant can attack a facially adequate affidavit that supports a search warrant in limited circumstances. If a defendant establishes that a material false statement essential to the finding of probable cause was included in the affidavit, and that the misstatement was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for its falsity, then the seized evidence should be suppressed. *Id.; United States v. Colkley,*899 F.2d 297, 300 (4th Cir.1990). Similarly, the intentional or reckless omission of material information necessary to the finding of probable cause should result in suppression of evidence. *Colkley,*899 F.2d at 300-01.

Here, the district court did not err when it concluded that no misstatement or omission from the affidavit was either intentional or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Furthermore, the information allegedly omitted from the affidavit, the mental condition of the informant, was not essential to the finding of probable cause. Therefore, this claim lacks merit.

Accordingly, we affirm Wilkerson’s conviction and sentence. 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.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Markland
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned chief executive officer and chief financial officer
of the Company, certify, to their best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Delmar R. Kintner                      /s/ Kenneth P. Ducey, Jr.
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer      Executive Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer

Date:  November 19, 2003                   Date:  November 19, 2003
Exhibit (31) (a)

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, John A. Emrich, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Guilford Mills,
            Inc.;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
            statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
            necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
            under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
            to the period covered by this report;


Date:  March 9, 2004



/s/ John A. Emrich
----------------------------------------
John A. Emrich
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 324.5 Former citizen of the United States whose naturalization by taking the oath is authorized by a private law.

A former citizen of the United States whose naturalization by taking the oath before any naturalization court or office of USCIS within the United States is authorized by a private law must submit an application on the form specified by USCIS, without fee, in accordance with the form instructions.

[76 FR 53800, Aug. 29, 2011]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Jesse H. Pardee, Deceased. Henry W. Killeen et al., Respondents; Virginia Securities, Limited, Appellant.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and MeCurn, JJ.
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-31269-KRH Doc 11 Filed 04/20/16 Entered 04/20/16 16:30:34 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
(No. 77-CC-1602

#### Charles Washington, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed September 28, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institu*252tion, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
§ 541.25 Notice received when placed in the SHU. You will be notified of the reason(s) you are placed in the SHU as follows: ( a ) *Administrative detention status.* When placed in administrative detention status, you will receive a copy of the administrative detention order, ordinarily within 24 hours, detailing the reason(s) for your placement. However, when placed in administrative detention status pending classification or while in holdover status, you will not receive an administrative detention order.
( b ) *Disciplinary segregation status.* When you are to be placed in disciplinary segregation status as a sanction for violating Bureau regulations, you will be informed by the DHO at the end of your discipline hearing.
### §669l. Value of land

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any institution eligible to receive Federal funds under the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) shall be allowed to use the value of any land owned by the institution as an in-kind match to satisfy any cost sharing requirement under this chapter.

(Sept. 2, 1937, ch. 899, §13, as added Pub. L. 116–188, title III, §303(2), Oct. 30, 2020, 134 Stat. 941.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 105–185, June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 523. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 13 of act Sept. 2, 1937, was renumbered section 14 and is set out as a Short Title note under section 669 of this title.
KINGS RIVER EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED FOREST 

HEALTH AND RESEARCH PROJECT 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Fresno County, California; Sierra National Forest; High Sierra Ranger District 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: N/A 

Responsible Official: Scott Armentrout, 

Forest Supervisor 

Sierra National Forest 

1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611 

For Information Contact: Judi Tapia, Environmental Coordinator 

Sierra National Forest 

1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611 

(559) 297-0706 ext. 4938

Abstract: The US Forest Service, Sierra National Forest (SNF) has prepared the Kings River 

Experimental Watershed Forest Health and Research Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). This FEIS analyzes the effects of four action alternatives and a no-action alternative to begin 

restoring fire adapted forest ecosystems by creating an all-age, multistoried, more fire-resilient forest that 

approximates pre-settlement conditions. The project area encompasses a total of 3,620 acres and has two 

separate management units: the Providence Unit (1,862 acres) and the Bull Unit (1,194 acres) plus 563 

acres in Teakettle Experimental Forest which is the experimental control for the Bull Unit treatments. The 

project area is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the mountain community of Shaver Lake and 

approximately 30 miles northeast of Fresno, CA. The project area is within the High Sierra Ranger 

District, SNF, in Fresno County, CA.

This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The alternatives analyzed include the Proposed Action/Hybrid Forest 

Restoration (Alternative 5), the No-action Alternative (Alternative 1), Uneven-Aged Management 

Alternative (Alternative 2), Fuel Reduction Alternative (Alternative 3), and the North General Technical 

Report (GTR)/Ecological Restoration Alternative (Alternative 4).
#### § 650.109 Public involvement.

Procedures which have been established to meet the public involvement requirements of 23 CFR part 771 shall be used to provide opportunity for early public review and comment on alternatives which contain encroachments.

[53 FR 11065, Apr. 5, 1988]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 90545 / December 1, 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-19816

In the Matter of

BitClave PTE, Ltd.,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

By order dated February 22, 2019, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”),1authorizing the Secretary to issue 

orders for calendar years 2019-2021 appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, 

Miller Kaplan Arase LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), a certified public accounting firm, with one 

of their offices located in San Fransciso, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur 

tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of 

the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On November 30, 2020, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the 

Omnibus Order, the appointment of Miller Kaplan as the Tax Administrator for the 

QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance 

with the Omnibus Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the abovereferenced proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85174 (Feb. 22, 2019).
```

[114th Congress Public Law 241]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 976]]

Public Law 114-241
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To exclude payments from State eugenics compensation programs from 
consideration in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, Federal 
          public benefits. <<NOTE: Oct. 7, 2016 -  [S. 1698]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Treatment of 
Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 18501 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Treatment of Certain Payments in 
Eugenics Compensation Act''.
SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 42 USC 18501.>>  EXCLUSION OF PAYMENTS FROM STATE 
                    EUGENICS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS FROM 
                    CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR, 
                    OR THE AMOUNT OF, FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
payments made under a State eugenics compensation program shall not be 
considered as income or resources in determining eligibility for, or the 
amount of, any Federal public benefit.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) Federal public benefit.--The term ``Federal public 
        benefit'' means--
                    (A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, 
                or commercial license provided by an agency of the 
                United States or by appropriated funds of the United 
                States; and
                    (B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, 
                public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, 
                food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other 
                similar benefit for which payments or assistance are 
                provided to an individual, household, or family 
                eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by 
                appropriated funds of the United States.

[[Page 130 STAT. 977]]

            (2) <<NOTE: 42 USC 1320b-7 note.>>  State eugenics 
        compensation program.--The term ``State eugenics compensation 
        program'' means a program established by State law that is 
        intended to compensate individuals who were sterilized under the 
        authority of the State.

    Approved October 7, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1698:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114-418 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 161 (2015):
                                    Nov. 30, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 162 (2016):
                                    Sept. 27, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
### §410rr–1. Establishment

#### (a) Preservation of existing Pecos National Monument and related resources

In order to enhance and preserve the existing Pecos National Monument and related nationally significant resources for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, there is hereby established the Pecos National Historical Park (hereinafter in this subchapter referred to as the "park").

#### (b) Park boundaries

The park shall include the existing Pecos National Monument and the area known as the Forked Lightning Ranch which surrounds the Pecos National Monument and shall consist of approximately 5,865 acres of the lands and interests in lands as generally depicted on the map entitled "Pecos National Historical Park Boundary Concept", numbered 430/80028 and dated March 1990. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this subchapter referred to as the "Secretary") may from time to time make minor revisions in the boundary of the park in accordance with section 100506(c) of title 54.

#### (c) Availability of monument funds for park purposes

The Act entitled "An Act to authorize the establishment of Pecos National Monument in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes" approved June 28, 1965 (79 Stat. 195), is hereby repealed, and any funds available for purposes of the Pecos National Monument shall be available for purposes of the park.

(Pub. L. 101–313, title II, §202, June 27, 1990, 104 Stat. 278.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act entitled "An Act to authorize the establishment of Pecos National Monument in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes" approved June 28, 1965 (79 Stat. 195), referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 89–54, June 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 195, which enacted provisions listed in a Miscellaneous National Monuments table set out under section 320301 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.

#### Codification

In subsec. (b), "section 100506(c) of title 54" substituted for "section 7(c) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 and following)" on authority of Pub. L. 113–287, §6(e), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272, which Act enacted Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

129017 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. GREGORY CAMBURN and Stephen J. Markman, FRED LEWIS, Trustee of the Justices FREDERICK LEWIS TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 129017 COA: 260197 Lenawee CC: 04-041619-CE MACON TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 26, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
rtnb_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1




 







root9B Technologies, Inc.


1185 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1750


New York, New York 10036


 


March 9, 2016







Dear Purchasers:


 


Reference is hereby made to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement, as amended to date, by and among root9B Technologies, Inc. (“root9B”) and the Purchasers (as defined therein), attached as Exhibit A hereto (the “Purchase Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement.


 


Pursuant to Section 2.1(b) of the Purchase Agreement, the parties agreed that all Closings under the Purchase Agreement would take place on or before March 9, 2016.  The Company now desires to extend such date until March 14, 2016.


 


Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Purchase Agreement, the Purchase Agreement may be amended by a written instrument signed by the Company and holders of a majority of the Shares sold thereunder.  The undersigned, constituting the Company and holders of a majority of the Shares sold under the Purchase Agreement, agree to amend the Purchase Agreement by deleting the last sentence of Section 2.1(b) and replacing it, in its entirety, with the following:


 


“Each Closing shall take place (each such date, a “Closing Date”) at such time and at such location as the parties to the respective Closing may agree; provided, that all Closings shall take place on or before March 14, 2016.”


 


Upon the execution of this letter agreement by each of the undersigned, the Purchase Agreement shall be deemed amended to the extent set forth herein.  All other terms and provisions of the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  If there is any inconsistency with the terms of the Purchase Agreement and this letter agreement, the terms of this letter agreement shall govern.  This letter agreement is intended to be a final expression of our agreement to amend the Purchase Agreement and is intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of our agreement and understanding with respect to such amendment.  This letter agreement may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement signed by all of the undersigned.







Sincerely,







_________________________________________


Brian King


Chief Operating Officer
# C_2013055EN.01002701.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/27

---

Action brought on 28 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC

(Case F-161/12)

2013/C 55/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

To seek compensation for the non-material damage that the applicant would have suffered due to his dismissal.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order to pay the sum of at least 118 500 euros in compensation of non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order to pay the sum of at least 118 500 euros in compensation of non-material damage;

| — | order ECDC to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECDC to pay all costs.

---