alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 7 of 8
January 27 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cv-02286-VRW Document 62 Filed 01/29/10 Page 8 of 8
### §1105. Form and style of work for departments

The Director of the Government Publishing Office shall determine the form and style in which the printing or binding ordered by a department is executed, and the material and the size of type used, having proper regard to economy, workmanship, and the purposes for which the work is needed.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1261; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §216 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §51, 28 Stat. 608).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".
### §618c. Charges as retroactive; adjustment of accounts

(a) Upon the taking effect of this subchapter, pursuant to section 618i of this title, the charges, or the basis of computation thereof, promulgated under this subchapter, shall be applicable as from June 1, 1937, and adjustments of accounts by reason thereof, including charges by and against the United States, shall be made so that the United States and all parties that have contracted for energy, or for the privilege of generating energy, at the project, shall be placed in the same position, as nearly as may be, as determined by the Secretary, that they would have occupied had such charges, or the basis of computation thereof, and the method of operation which may be provided for under section 618h of this title, been effective on June 1, 1937: Provided, That such adjustments with contractors shall not be made in cash, but shall be made by means of credits extended over such period as the Secretary may determine.

(b) In the event payments to the States of Arizona and Nevada, or either of them, under section 618a(c) of this title, shall be reduced by reason of the collection of taxes mentioned in said section, adjustments shall be made, from time to time, with each allottee which shall have paid any such taxes, by credits or otherwise, for that proportion of the amount of such reductions which the amount of the payments of such taxes by such allottee bears to the total amount of such taxes collected.

(July 19, 1940, ch. 643, §4, 54 Stat. 776.)
#### In the Matter of Regal Wine & Liquor, Inc., Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### § 58.14 Interaction with State, Federal and non-Federal entities.

A responsible entity shall consult with appropriate environmental agencies, State, Federal and non-Federal entities and the public in the preparation of an EIS, EA or other environmental reviews undertaken under the related laws and authorities cited in § 58.5 and § 58.6. The responsible entity must also cooperate with other agencies to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable environmental review requirements of the State (see 40 CFR 1506.2 (b) and (c)). The responsible entity must prepare its EAs and EISs so that they comply with the environmental review requirements of both Federal and State laws unless otherwise specified or provided by law. State, Federal and local agencies may participate or act in a joint lead or cooperating agency capacity in the preparation of joint EISs or joint environmental assessments (see 40 CFR 1501.5(b) and 1501.6). A single EIS or EA may be prepared and adopted by multiple users to the extent that the review addresses the relevant environmental issues and there is a written agreement between the cooperating agencies which sets forth the coordinated and overall responsibilities.

[63 FR 15271, Mar. 30, 1998]
### §51. Liability of common carriers by railroad, in interstate or foreign commerce, for injuries to employees from negligence; employee defined

Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States or Territories, or between any of the States and Territories, or between the District of Columbia and any of the States or Territories, or between the District of Columbia or any of the States or Territories and any foreign nation or nations, shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee's parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.

Any employee of a carrier, any part of whose duties as such employee shall be the furtherance of interstate or foreign commerce; or shall, in any way directly or closely and substantially, affect such commerce as above set forth shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be considered as being employed by such carrier in such commerce and shall be considered as entitled to the benefits of this chapter.

(Apr. 22, 1908, ch. 149, §1, 35 Stat. 65; Aug. 11, 1939, ch. 685, §1, 53 Stat. 1404.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1939—Act Aug. 11, 1939, inserted last par.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

The Act of Apr. 22, 1908, as amended, which comprises this chapter, is popularly known as the "Employers' Liability Act".

The following are also popularly known as Employers' Liability Acts:

June 11, 1906, ch. 3073, 34 Stat. 232 [Unconstitutional].

Apr. 5, 1910, ch. 143, 36 Stat. 291. See sections 56 and 59 of this title.

Aug. 11, 1939, ch. 685, 53 Stat. 1404. See sections 51, 54, 56, and 60 of this title.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-78,752-04

EX PARTE TIMOTHY QUINTEN BALDWIN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 120021BR IN THE 260 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM ORANGE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to fifty years’

imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Baldwin v. State, No. 09-13-

00071-CR (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 15, 2014)(not designated for publication). 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.

Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to properlyinvestigate

and consult with him prior to trial, he failed to consult with a medical expert, he prevented Applicant

from testifying in his own defense, and he failed to object to a detective testifying regarding a nurse’s

sexual assault examination report. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to
2

relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, the record should be developed.

The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, §

3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the

record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to

hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants

to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall

immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. 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: September 16, 2020

Do not publish
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11

               Statement Re:  Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                          Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
                                          June 29,  June 30,   June 29, June 30,
                                            1997      1996       1997     1996
                                          --------  --------   -------- --------
<S>                                       <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Primary
 
Average shares outstanding                   5,033     2,048      5,033    2,048
                                                              
Adjustment to reflect shares issued to                        
  consider S corporation                                      
  distributions                                 22        39         27       39
                                                              
Shares issuable upon the exercise of                          
  outstanding stock options and                               
  warrant                                      114         -        120        -
                                            ------    ------     ------   ------
Total                                        5,169     2,087      5,180    2,087
                                            ======    ======     ======   ======
                                                              
Pro forma net income                        $  841    $  245     $1,686   $  554
                                            ======    ======     ======   ======
                                                              
Pro forma net income per share              $ 0.16    $ 0.12     $ 0.33   $ 0.27
                                            ======    ======     ======   ======
</TABLE>

Fully diluted earnings per Common Share and primary earnings per Common Share
are the same for the three and six months ended June 29, 1997.
### §792. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–375, title I, §111(b), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1821

Section, Pub. L. 93–236, title VI, §602, Jan. 2, 1974, 87 Stat. 1022, provided that as part of his annual report, the Secretary transmit to Congress a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the Association and the Corporation in implementing the purposes of this chapter, together with any recommendations for additional legislative or other action.

Subsequent to repeal by Pub. L. 97–375, section was repealed and the provisions thereof were reenacted as the last sentence of section 308(a) of Title 49, Transportation, by Pub. L. 97–449, §§1(b), 7(b), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2413, 2443. Section 6(a) of Pub. L. 97–449 provided that: "Sections 1–5 of this act restate, without substantive change, laws enacted before November 15, 1982, that were replaced by those sections. * * * Laws enacted after November 14, 1982, that are inconsistent with this Act supersede this Act to the extent of the inconsistency." Accordingly, the last sentence of section 308(a) of Title 49 was superseded by the repeal made by section 111(b) of Pub. L. 97–375, and was specifically repealed by Pub. L. 98–216, §2(1)(A)(ii), Feb. 14, 1984, 98 Stat. 4.

Pub. L. 97–375, title I, §111(b), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1821, which repealed this section, was itself repealed by Pub. L. 98–216, §6(b), Feb. 14, 1984, 98 Stat. 8.
.._ii

<'I t .' I **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

**. \**  **AUSTIN**



### Hon. &QJJz~~~

Cole,CountyAuditor Liberty

County Liberty,

T-8 l-mar Sir:Hon. L-urphy Cole, April 5, 1939, Page 2

order the same to be paid to the State Treasurer,

who shall hold same In trust to be paid to the owner egalnstwhom said taxeswere assessed;provided,any one claining the sanw shall&e proof of his claim to the satisraotfon of the State Treasurer

within three years after the sale or said land or lots, after wbioh the ease shall be governed by the law regulatingesoheat. * + + * n
In rieu **0r** th6 wording **or** WE atatutcr, it 

### is au]:

**oplnlca** 

### that the mmalnd6r of the pureha60- 

### prloe,ii 

### any, afterthe jud8w6nt ie pal6 in full, shallbe paid by the shmiff to the olerk of the oourt, out OS whloh 

### said eaeauticm or oth6r finalprouses iSSUed 

### to be retained

by him, mbjsot to the order 

### of the oourt ror a periodol two ream unleerr otherwllle ordered

by the oourt,afterwhloh t&m the courtm&y or&r the IWUIIO%O

be paid to thti

owner against

whop said taxes were asseeaed then, after the CarpirqtlcQ Lw or two yeare any one ala this balanoe shallmake pr00r or his ol.ein~to the eat*sfaetion

of the atate Treasurer-withinthree year6 after the sale Or the land and if no 

### atdi#aOtiorp olaU ia made to the 

### &ate .i Treamretr

wi,thld$hree

yeers,thj.8

money shall es@hsat to the Statsof l!ararri

'Pnurtingthls

ii~ thij lnfonnation

whlah you desire, we ar6
Yoursv6ry truly

PCCrob 

### lmhtant.
BTPROVJCD: &kA-LdA.A ATTORNEP

Ol!NERAL

OF TEXAS’
****
**High Performance Computing and Communications:Foundation for America's Information Future**
**Table of Contents**
### §15103. National Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee

(a) Establishment.—There is established a National Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the "Committee").

(b) Function.—The Committee shall advise the Secretary on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including the training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness of mariners.

(c) Membership.—

(1) In general.—The Committee shall consist of 19 members appointed by the Secretary in accordance with this section and section 15109 of this chapter.

(2) Expertise.—Each member of the Committee shall have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience in matters relating to the function of the Committee.

(3) Representation.—Members of the Committee shall be appointed as follows:

(A) 9 members shall represent mariners and, of the 9—

(i) each shall—

(I) be a citizen of the United States; and

(II) hold an active license or certificate issued under chapter 71 of this title or a merchant mariner document issued under chapter 73 of this title;

(ii) 3 shall be deck officers who represent merchant marine deck officers and, of the 3—

(I) 2 shall be licensed for oceans any gross tons;

(II) 1 shall be licensed for inland river route with a limited or unlimited tonnage;

(III) 2 shall have a master's license or a master of towing vessels license;

(IV) 1 shall have significant tanker experience; and

(V) to the extent practicable—

(aa) 1 shall represent labor; and

(bb) 1 shall represent management;

(iii) 3 shall be engineering officers who represent merchant marine engineering officers and, of the 3—

(I) 2 shall be licensed as chief engineer any horsepower;

(II) 1 shall be licensed as either a limited chief engineer or a designated duty engineer; and

(III) to the extent practicable—

(aa) 1 shall represent labor; and

(bb) 1 shall represent management;

(iv) 2 shall be unlicensed seamen who represent merchant marine unlicensed seaman and, of the 2—

(I) 1 shall represent able-bodied seamen; and

(II) 1 shall represent qualified members of the engine department; and

(v) 1 shall be a pilot who represents merchant marine pilots.

(B) 6 members shall represent marine educators and, of the 6—

(i) 3 shall be marine educators who represent maritime academies and, of the 3—

(I) 2 shall represent State maritime academies (and are jointly recommended by such academies); and

(II) 1 shall represent either State maritime academies or the United States Merchant Marine Academy; and

(ii) 3 shall be marine educators who represent other maritime training institutions and, of the 3, 1 shall represent the small vessel industry.

(C) 2 members shall represent shipping companies employed in ship operation management.

(D) 2 members shall represent the general public.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title VI, §601(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4282.)
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WONDIYRAD KABEDE,

Petitioner,

 v.

FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 09-2092 TEH (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit, Hayward

v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010)

(en banc), addressed important issues relating to federal habeas

review of BPH decisions denying parole to California state

prisoners. As such, the Court will provide each party an

opportunity to submit a supplemental brief (not to exceed ten (10)

pages in length) explaining his views of how the Hayward en banc

decision applies to the facts presented in Petitioner’s challenge to

BPH’s decision denying him parole. 

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02092-TEH Document 24 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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 2

The Court sets the following schedule:

1. No later than July 2, 2010, Respondent must file and

serve any supplemental brief applying Hayward to the facts presented

in Petitioner’s case. 

2. No later than July 30, 2010, Petitioner must file and

serve any supplemental brief applying Hayward to the facts presented

in his case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 06/10/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Kabede-09-2092-hayward briefing.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02092-TEH Document 24 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0373. WILLIAM GEORGE MITCHELL v. THE STATE.

In August 2012, William Mitchell pled guilty to one count of theft by taking,

for which he received a ten-year probated sentence. In November 2019, the trial court

modified Mitchell’s probation and required Mitchell to serve 160 to 180 days in the

Probation Detention Center followed by substance abuse treatment. In January 2020,

Mitchell filed a “notice of appeal.” The trial court treated the motion as a motion for

out-of-time appeal, which itsubsequently denied on February 7, 2020. On March 13,

2020, Mitchell filed an application for discretionary review in this Court. We,

however, dismissed Mitchell’s application as untimely. See Case No. A20D0345

(decided March 24, 2020). Mitchell also filed an application for discretionary appeal

of the February 7 order in the Georgia Supreme Court, which transferred the

application to this Court. See Case No. S20D0954 (decided March 25, 2020). 

Because we dismissed Mitchell’s first discretionary application seeking review

of the same order, the doctrine of res judicata bars Mitchell from seeking further

appellate review of the trial court’s order. See Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568

(2) (642 SE2d 34) (2007);see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d

464) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum. 

May 28, 2020
The same is true of appeals of the same issue on the same grounds.”). For thisreason,

Mitchell’s application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/28/2020
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Amendment No. 1) for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



August 19, 2014

/s/ R. Greg
Smith

R. Greg Smith

Chief Financial Officer
#### § 3285.309 [Reserved]
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD DOBLE, an individual, and

ROCHELLE DOBLE, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MEGA LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE.

COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-01611 CRB

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE LARSON’S MARCH 31, 2010

DISCOVERY ORDER

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s Objection to Magistrate Judge James

Larson’s March 31, 2010 Order compelling discovery of various documents in the

Defendant’s possession. Defendant asks this Court set aside that Order in its entirety.

Having reviewed Judge Larson’s Order and the parties’ submissions, the Court finds

that no part of Judge Larson’s Order is “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, Defendant’s request to set aside that order is DENIED. 

In their response to Defendant’s Objection, Plaintiff’s request that the Court set a

series of deadlines for the production of the documents covered by Judge Larson’s Order. 

The Court declines to do so at this time. Plaintiffs should submit their request to Judge

Larson for an initial ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:09-cv-01611-CRB Document 59 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\1611\Order re Objection to Judge Larson's Order.wpd 2

Dated: April 22, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01611-CRB Document 59 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 2