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

|  |  |
|--|--|

| ** ** |
|------------|

|   | ****Barker-Karpis Gang****(summary)**** 
57 pages

Kate "Ma" Barker and her sons, Herman, Lloyd, Arthur, and Fred teamed up with Alvin Karpis (whom Fred met in the penitentiary) and several other criminals. This summary gives an account of their criminal careers, including the 1934 kidnaping of Edward G. Bremer, a wealthy Minnesota businessman.

**Part 01**

Introduction
Reading Room Index - A   B   C   D   E    F   G- H   I    J    K   L   M   N   -O   P   Q   R   S   T   U-V   W   X   Y   Z   
Electronic Reading Room
- Alphabetical Listing- Espionage-Famous Persons-Gangster Era- Historical Interest- Unusual Phenomena-Violent CrimeFBI              File Fact Sheet FOIA Request Instructions- FOIA Request Form - Privacy Waiver and Certificate of Identity Form Privacy Act Instructions- Privacy Act Request FormDOJ              Reference GuideU.S.              DOJ FOIASearch
All of these publications are in PDF (Portable Document Format). To view them you will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in installed on your computer. The Reader can be downloaded at no cost from Adobe's site on the World Wide Web.   If you have difficulty accessing any material on this site because of a disability, please contact us in writing or via telephone and we will work with you to make the information available.

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section    202-324-5520 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT AO 

DeCurtis’ March 12, 20 Response to 

February 20, 2022 Carnival Letter 

Dkt. 95-3 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 284-41 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 1 of 2
Freeborn DAVID C.GUSTMAN 

~~ Partner 

FREEBORN &PETERS LLP Freeborn &Peters LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

311 South Wacker Drive 

Suite 30g0 

Chicagq, IL 60606 

(312) 360-6515 direct 

(312) 360-6520 fax 

dgustman@freeborn.com 

March 12, 220 www.freeborn.com 

Via Electronic Delivery 

T. Vann Pearce 

Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe LLP 

1152 15th Street, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005-1706 

Re: Carnival's Audit of DeCurtis's Records 

Dear Mr. Pearce, 

We write to follow up on our correspondence dated March 6, 2020 and in response to your 

letter and attachment dated March 4, 2020 seeking to audit DeCurtis's records pursuant to Section 

3.4 of the Master Services Agreement (the "MSA"). Although we concede neither that the MSA is 

enforceable or that Carnival's demands are proper, we are willing to make a reasonable production 

of the following information to the extent it exists and can be located, subject to Carnival's 

execution of a confidentiality agreement: 

1. Any source code developed under the MSA to which DeCurtis has reasonable access 

to; 

2. Records of expenses and receipts, including invoices, related to the EIC project; 

3. DeCurtis policies and methods used to protect Confidential Information; and 

4. Documents relating to the Statements of Work identified in your March 4 letter to 

which DeCurtis has reasonable access. 

Please keep in mind that the process of identifying and producing this information is 

complicated by the fact that Carnival's audit requests seek documents that are over four years old 

and require DeCurtis to identify and search historical files. Due to the time-intensive nature of this 

review, DeCurtis will produce any responsive documents on a rolling basis. Access instructions to 

DeCurtis's first production are forthcoming. 

Very truly yours, 

ls/ David C. Gustman 

David C. Gustman 

DCG 

Chicago, IL •New York, NY •Richmond, VA •Springfield, IL •Tampa, FL 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 284-41 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 111.71 Immaterial mistakes.

The Executive Assistant Commissioner will disregard an immaterial misnomer of a third person, an immaterial mistake in the description of any person, thing, or place, or ownership of any property, any other immaterial mistake in the statement of charges, or a failure to prove immaterial allegations in the description of the broker's conduct.

[T.D. 00-17, 65 FR 13891, Mar. 15, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63320, Oct. 18, 2022]
EXHIBIT 23.1








MALCOLM L. POLLARD, INC


4845 W. LAKE ROAD, # 119


ERIE, PA 16505







(814)838-8258FAX (814)838-8452




April 23, 2012




To the Board of Directors




Global Entertainment Holdings, Inc.




We  hereby consent to the incorporation of our opinion dated April 14, 2011 and April 23, 2012  covering the years ending December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009  in the Form 10K of Global Entertainment Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011.




Very truly yours,






Malcolm L. Pollard, Inc.


Malcolm L Pollard, CPA
Exhibit “3”

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1467-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 1 of 2
SEC v. Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc., et al.

Case No. 20-cv-81205-RAR (U.S. District Court, S.D. Fla.)

NOTICE TO ALL CREDITORS AND INVESTORS RE: 

DEADLINE TO SUBMIT CLAIMS

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the above case has ordered that all 

creditors of Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. and other entities that have been included 

as Receivership Entities in this case must submit a Proof of Claim form prior to the deadline 

below to be considered eligible to receive a distribution from the Receivership Estate being 

administered by Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq., the Court-Appointed Receiver.

DEADLINE/BAR DATE: All Proofs of Claim must be submitted by no later than 11:59 

p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) on _________, 2023 (the “Claims Bar Date”). 

A properly completed and signed Proof of Claim Form, together with supporting documentation, 

must be timely submitted to the Receiver’s Claims Agent by: (i) uploading it to the claims portal, 

which is available on the Receiver’s website at http://www.parfundingreceivership.com; (ii) mail 

to Par Funding Receivership Claims Processing Center, c/o Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC,

P.O. Box 4421, Beaverton, OR 97076-4421; or (iii) courier service addressed to Par Funding 

Receivership Claims Processing Center, c/o Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC, 10300 SW 

Allen Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97005, such that if uploaded to the claims portal or sent by courier 

service, it is delivered to the Claims Agent no later than the Claims Bar Date, or if sent by mail it 

is postmarked no later than the Claims Bar Date. 

Additional information is available at: http://www.parfundingreceivership.com

Failure to submit or deliver, or mail so that it is postmarked, a Proof of Claim prior to the Claims 

Bar Date will result in your claim being forever barred.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1467-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-82,827-03 & WR-82,827-04

EX PARTE JERRY PAUL ROSE, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. B09410-2 & B09540-2 IN THE 198 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM KERR COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON and RICHARDSON, JJ.,

joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should
Rose - 2

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPALACCOUNTING OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Tripath Technology Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David S.G. MacKenzie,Principal 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:

 

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|                 |   |                         |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------|
| Date: April 24, 2008 | By:    | /s/ David S.G. MacKenzie     |
|                 |   | David S.G. MacKenzie         |
|                 |   | Principal Financial  Officer |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.908 Effect of noncompliance; failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment. ( a ) *General.* If the importer fails to comply with any requirement under this subpart, including submission of a complete certification prepared in accordance with § 10.904 of this subpart, when requested, the Center director may deny preferential tariff treatment to the imported good.
( b ) *Failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment.* Where the requirements for preferential tariff treatment set forth elsewhere in this subpart are met, the Center director nevertheless may deny preferential tariff treatment to an originating good if the good is shipped through or transshipped in a country other than a Party to the PTPA, and the importer of the good does not provide, at the request of the Center director, evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Center director that the conditions set forth in § 10.925(a) of this subpart were met.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 96-54 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson September 20, 1996

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

NRC PROPOSES TO FINE HL&P $200,000

IN WHISTLEBLOWER CASES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has informed Houston Lighting & Power Co. that it

proposes to fine the company $200,000 for discrimination against two workers who raised safety

concerns at HL&P's South Texas Project nuclear power plant near Bay City, Texas.

The two workers, Thomas H. Smith and Earl V. Keene, were employees of Ebasco Services Inc.

and Raytheon Co., respectively, contractors at the South Texas Project (STP) plant. In both cases, the

U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) ruled after conducting adjudicatory hearings that discrimination

occurred. The NRC customarily relies on DOL determinations in deciding whether NRC employee

protection requirements were violated.

L. Joe Callan, NRC Regional Administrator, said in a letter to William T. Cottle, Group Vice

President Nuclear at HL&P, "The NRC recognizes that HL&P was not a party to either proceeding before

the DOL; however, this does not relieve HL&P of its responsibility for the actions of its contractors."

The first violation is based on findings from a DOL proceeding in which the Secretary of Labor, in

a decision issued March 13, found that Thomas H. Smith was discriminated against in 1991. After Mr.

Smith raised concerns about scaffolding practices he was depicted in offensive office cartoons as a

whistleblower.

The second violation is based on a DOL proceeding in which a Recommended Decision and

Order issued Sept. 29, 1995, found that Earl V. Keene was discriminated against after he raised concerns

about signing off for electrical maintenance work he did not perform. He was subsequently given a low

performance appraisal rating, laid off in March 1994 and subjected to unnecessary fitness-for-duty testing

when he reapplied for work in May 1994.

The violation involving Mr. Smith has been categorized as a Severity Level II, and that involving

Mr. Keene Severity Level III under the NRC's four-level system. Level I is the most severe violation. Civil

penalties have been assessed at $100,000 for each violation.

In his letter to HL&P, Mr. Callan acknowledged that HL&P has taken comprehensive actions since

1993 to ". . . enhance the environment for raising concerns at [South Texas], to assure that employees
are aware of the various means for raising concerns, and to improve the [South Texas] employee

concerns program."

HL&P must respond to the Notice of Violation in writing within 30 days, during which time it may

pay the civil penalty or protest it. If the protest is denied, the company may ask for a hearing.

-30-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-57 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson September 23, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

STOLEN X-RAY CAMERA FOUND SAFE

An industrial radiography camera stolen along with a pickup truck last Thursday was

recovered by the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Department on Sunday. The radioactive source, which

had the potential to cause injury to anyone exposed to it, was safely locked inside the camera’s

shielded protective case.

The radiography camera, along with other equipment stored in the truck, was found

along the Arkansas River near Interstate 44 on Sunday morning by a man who was fishing.

The truck and camera belonged to Bill Miller, Inc., an industrial radiography company, in

Henryetta. The truck has not been recovered.

An inspector from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in Tulsa to investigate the

incident. Preliminary information from the Sheriff and Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality indicates that no one was exposed to the radioactive source, which remained locked

inside the camera.

The NRC wishes to thank the Oklahoma DEQ, the Tulsa County Sheriff and Bill Miller

for prompt and aggressive action that resulted in the recovery of the camera with no injury to

the public.

###
§ 112.45 Surrender of identification cards. The identification card shall be surrendered by the holder or licensee to the port director when: ( a ) The employee holder leaves the employment of the licensed cartman or lighterman;
( b ) The cartman or lighterman bond or license is terminated; or
( c ) The card is revoked or suspended pursuant to § 112.48.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Elijah F. J. Bermingham, Respondent, v. The Dexter Sulphite, Pulp and Paper Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs, without prejudice to an application at Special Term for a hmitation or modification of the order, in case the relator exercises the right given arbitrarily or oppressively. (See *Matter of Gould,*201 N. Y. 597.) All concurred.
Geograph
USAID/ Alban

Tirana - based a

- Albanian Distribution
Privatization Program

- Central Bank Assistance

- Millenium Challenge
Account (MCA II)

- Avian Influenca

- Higher Education and
Economic Development
Program

- Judicial Reform Index

Nationwide coverage act ‘S

- Demographic Health
Survey (DHS)

- Coordination Action Against
Human Trafficking (CAAHT)

- Forecast Training Program

- Albanian American
Enterprise Fund (AAEF)

Legend
* Communication for Behavior Change
Al Access Family Planning
Transnational Action Against Child Trafficking
© Improving Primary Health Care in Albania (Proshendetit)
Albanian Disability Rights Foundation
Local Governance Program in Albania
Rule of Law Program
Albanian Agriculture Competitiveness (AAC)

Activities are related to polides that affect albanians nationwide

TEPELENE

Macedonia

+
DEVOLL

Greece

Produced by GIS unit, February 2009

25 Kilometers
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/November%202012/P-11-0060/p110060.eng.txt[12/6/2012 8:47:11 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0060

Focus Ready Draft 11/22/2010

ENGINEER: Macek \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

 
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/November%202012/P-11-0060/p110060.eng.txt[12/6/2012 8:47:11 AM]

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (11/16/2010):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs: 

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN - P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt - P3B1T1

Health: 1 Not Required

Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 61 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: NR

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/November%202012/P-11-0060/p110060.eng.txt[12/6/2012 8:47:11 AM]

assessed in this IRER (none required, per SAT).

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

No Pollution Prevention information provided by the

submitter.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0060

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis:

Inhalation:
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/November%202012/P-11-0060/p110060.eng.txt[12/6/2012 8:47:11 AM]

Dermal:

Exposures not required, per SAT.

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0060

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

Output 1: 4.0E-1 kg/site-day over 250 days/yr from 10

sites

or 10.0E+2 kg/yr

Output 2: 2.0E+0 kg/site-day over 250 days/yr from 10

sites

or 5.0E+3 kg/yr

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 6.2E+0 kg/site-day over 24 days/yr from 10 sites

or 1.5E+3 kg/yr
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/November%202012/P-11-0060/p110060.eng.txt[12/6/2012 8:47:11 AM]

RELEASE TOTAL

6.5E+3 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 98 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 99 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 100 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 101 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court[ 98 MAL 2021, 99 MAL 2021, 100 MAL 2021, 101 MAL 2021, 102 MAL 2021, 103 MAL

2021, 104 MAL 2021 and 105 MAL 2021 ]

- 2 JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 102 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 103 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 104 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent :

:

:

: No. 105 MAL 2021[ 98 MAL 2021, 99 MAL 2021, 100 MAL 2021, 101 MAL 2021, 102 MAL 2021, 103 MAL

2021, 104 MAL 2021 and 105 MAL 2021 ]

- 3 v.

JESSE SMOOT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

In this case, where Petitioner was without counsel for three of the four month pre

trial period in the Court of Common Pleas, did the Superior Court misapply United

States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 (1984), when it affirmed the denial of PCRA relief

because Petitioner did not identity [sic] a “critical stage” during which Petitioner

was without counsel?
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Hike the Buffalo Point Campground Trails

Buffalo National River