alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from 
     JACKAL INDUSTRIES, INC. September 30, 1998  financial  statements and  is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894538
<NAME>                        JACKAL INDUSTRIES, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998

<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 132

 132

 128

 120

 122

 115

 130

 117

 123

 120

 121

 121

 129

 133

 140

 133

 130

 136

 135

 132

 137

 138

 146

 144

 146

 152

 148

 149

 151

 150

 157

 112

 116

 103

 102

 101

 99

 105

 106

 107

 107

 113

 111

 113

 114

 116

 119

 119

 122

 120

 120

 119

 121

 123

 129

 134

 134

 136

 135

 138

 136

 137

 122

 123

 115

 113

 110

 109

 114

 113

 114

 114

 117

 117

 120

 125

 125

 126

 124

 127

 125

 123

 125

 126

 130

 135

 137

 140

 141

 140

 141

 142

 143

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Les Jin, Press and Communications (202) 376-7700.

Debra A. Carr,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04-22301 Filed 9-29-04; 4:30 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
Opinion filed July 14, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00073-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF G.R., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10112-CX

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the 

parental rights of the parents of G.R. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 

2022). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and concludes that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit 

and is therefore frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re 
2

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a holding by the 

Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature”

if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In 

re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed 

counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the 

standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the reporter’s

record and the clerk’s record in this cause. Counsel also informed Appellant of her

right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We conclude

that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief and motion to withdraw. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and 

Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree 

that the appeal is frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to 

withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 

S.W.3d at 27. 

Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial 

court’s order of termination. 

PER CURIAM

July 14, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
sourceTypeIDroadTypeIDroadTypeVMTFraction 11 1 0.000000 11 2 0.559954 11 3 0.440046 11 4 0.000000 11 5 0.000000 21 1 0.000000 21 2 0.559954 21 3 0.440046 21 4 0.000000 21 5 0.000000 31 1 0.000000 31 2 0.559954 31 3 0.440046 31 4 0.000000 31 5 0.000000 32 1 0.000000 32 2 0.559954 32 3 0.440046 324 0.000000 32 5 0.000000 41 1 0.000000 41 2 0.559954 41 3 0.440046 41 4 0.000000 41 5 0.000000 42 1 0.000000 42 2 0.559954 42 3 0.440046 424 0.000000 42 5 0.000000 43 1 0.000000 432 0.559954 43 3 0.440046 434 0.000000 43 5 0.000000 51 1 0.000000 51 2 0.559954 51 3 0.440046 51 4 0.000000 51 5 0.000000 52 1 0.000000 52 2 0.559954 52 3 0.440046 524 0.000000 52 5 0.000000 53 1 0.000000 532 0.559954 53 3 0.440046 534 0.000000 53 5 0.000000 54 1 0.00000054 2 0.559954 54 3 0.440046 544 0.000000 54 5 0.000000 61 1 0.000000 61 2 0.559954 61 3 0.440046 61 4 0.000000 61 5 0.000000 62 1 0.000000 62 2 0.559954 62 3 0.440046 624 0.000000 62 5 0.000000
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Solar Dynamic Power Option for Space Solar PowerA study was performed to determine the potential performance and related technology requirements of Solar Dynamic power systems for a Space Solar Power satellite. Space Solar Power is a concept where solar energy is collected in orbit and beamed to Earth receiving stations to supplement terrestrial electric power service. Solar Dynamic systems offer the benefits of high solar-to-electric efficiency, long life with minimal performance degradation, and high power scalability. System analyses indicate that with moderate component development, SD systems can exhibit excellent mass and deployed area characteristics. Using the analyses as a guide, a technology roadmap was -enerated which identifies the component advances necessary to make SD power generation a competitive option for the SSP mission.Document ID19990062655Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsMason, Lee S.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1999Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209380NASA/TM-1999-209380E-11803Meeting InformationMeeting: Intersociety Energy Conversion EngineeringLocation: Vancouver, British ColumbiaCountry: CanadaStart Date: August 1, 1999End Date: August 5, 1999Sponsors:Society of Automotive EngineersFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-81-OADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990062655.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,011-01

EX PARTE JAMES HAROLD MOON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-16-26034-A IN THE 336TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM FANNIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty-five years’

imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Moon v. State, No. 06-17-

00142-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana del. May 24, 2018). Applicant filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Before this Court received the habeas application, the trial court had ordered a response from

trial counsel. The record provided to this Court, however, has no such response, and there are no

findings from the trial court. The application is remanded to the trial court to allow the trial judge

to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings.
2

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law resolving the disputed

factual issues within ninety days from the date of this order. The trial court may also make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate. The district clerk shall then immediately forward

to this Court the trial court’s findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand,

including, among other things, affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions,

orders, and transcripts from hearings and depositions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any

extensions of time must be requested by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: April 1, 2020

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD DAVID LASZCZYNSKI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-95-13, CA-96-185)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard David Laszczynski, Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Stein,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David D. Laszczynski, convicted on a guilty plea of escape,

now appeals the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. §

2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), in which Laszczynski raised several

claims relating to the waiver of his right to appeal, various sentencing claims, and ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal

Laszczynski raises only one claim. Specifically, Laszczynski alleges that, in dismissing his direct appeal, this court erroneously

held that his waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary,

and enforceable. He admits that while he did waive his appellate

rights to challenge his sentence in the plea agreement he signed,

he claims that at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, the district

court led him to believe that he retained the right to appeal his

sentence based upon the application of the sentencing guidelines to

his case.

We have previously considered and determined that Laszczynski’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and that his waiver was

enforceable, and decline to reconsider this issue in this appeal.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Because this appeal presents no complex or substantial

issue of law, we deny Laszczynski’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 3604.13 When will BLM decline to issue a free use permit to a qualified applicant? BLM will not issue a free use permit if we determine that you own or control an adequate supply of suitable mineral materials that: ( a ) Are readily available, and
( b ) You can mine in a manner that is economically and environmentally acceptable.
#### § 2920.3 Bureau of Land Management initiated land use proposals.

Where, as a result of the land use planning process, the desirability of allowing use of the public lands or providing increased service to the public from such use of the public lands is demonstrated, the authorized officer may identify a use for the public land and notify the public that proposals for utilizing the land through a lease, permit or easement will be considered.
Exhibit 32.1



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                                 Powerlinx, Inc.
          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 Powerlinx, Inc. he 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, George S. Bernardich,
III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Powerlinx, Inc.. and will be retained by Powerlinx, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


 /s/ George S. Bernardich, III
-----------------------------
George S. Bernardich, III
Chief Executive Officer
May 17, 2004
Attachment3_ Phantom pilot training guide V1.1 http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/phantom-2-vision/en/Phantom_2_Vision_Pilot_Training_Guide_en.pdf (exceeds file upload size)
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**144 KA 11-01198** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS A. BUSH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JONES & MORRIS, VICTOR (MICHAEL A. JONES, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JEFFREY L. TAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered April 13, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, a class D felony (two counts), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the conditional discharge and ignition interlock device requirement and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2], [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). Defendant contends that the portion of his sentence imposing a three-year conditional discharge and an ignition interlock device requirement is illegal inasmuch as he committed the offense prior to the effective date of the statute imposing those requirements. We agree, and we therefore modify the judgment by vacating those provisions. Pursuant to the Laws of 2009 (ch 496, § 15), the amendments to, inter alia, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198 are not applicable to defendant because he committed his offense before November 18, 2009, the date of the enactment of those amendments. The People’s reliance on People v Farrelly (92 AD3d 1290, lv denied 19 NY3d 996) is misplaced inasmuch as the record in that case reveals that the defendant committed his offense after the date on which the amendments were enacted.

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 26, 2009 

d0623 

Order 

 

June 26, 2009 

139007 

In re RICHARD CHARLES GEORGE, 

CHARENZE ANTHONY, LORENZO 

ANTHONY, JR., CANDANCE ANTHONY, 

and DEMETRIUS ANTHONY, Minors. 

_________________________________________/ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 139007 

 COA: 286896 

Wayne CC Family Division: 

LORENZO ANTHONY, 07-475133-NA 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 3505.85 May BLM cancel my prospecting permit for reasons other than failure to pay rental? Yes. ( a ) We may cancel your permit if you do not comply with the Mineral Leasing Act, any of the other acts applicable to your specific permit, these regulations, or any of the permit terms or stipulations. We will give you 30 days notice, within which you must correct your default. If your default continues, BLM may cancel your permit.
( b ) If we waive one cause for cancellation, we may still cancel your permit for another cause, or for the same cause occurring at another time. Unless you file an appeal, we will note your permit cancellation on the land status records. BLM may use your bond to reclaim the land or correct other deficiencies if we cancel your permit.
EXHIBIT 32




   CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Bucyrus International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Timothy W. Sullivan, as President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Craig R. Mackus, Chief Financial Officer,
Controller and Secretary of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/T. W. Sullivan
Timothy W. Sullivan
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 27, 2004



/s/C. R. Mackus
Craig R. Mackus
Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Secretary
October 27, 2004


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.