alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cr-00289 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Dr. Paramesh Gopi, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    DR. PARAMESH
GOPIDr. Paramesh GopiPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 9, 2011
### Geologic map of the Banta Ridge Quadrangle, Rio Blanco County, Colorado

By: M. P. PanteaL.J. Schmitt

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/mf2308

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: UNITED STATES 

 v.

 HEON SEOK LEE

Case Number: 12 CR 109

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

HEON SEOK LEE

Attorney name (type or print): ADAM J. SHEPPARD

Firm: SHEPPARD LAW FIRM, P.C.

Street address: 180 N. LASALLE STREET, SUITE 2510

City/State/Zip: CHICAGO, IL 60601

Bar ID Number: 6587375

(See item 3 in instructions)

Telephone Number: (312) 443-1233

Email Address: ADAM@SHEPPARDLAW.COM

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? Yes No

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? Yes No

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? Yes No

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? Yes No

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

 Appointed Counsel

If appointed counsel, are you a

Federal Defender

CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on MAY 3, 2016

Attorney signature: S/ ADAM SHEPPARD

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 65 Filed: 05/03/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:229
216.505-70 Orders under multiple-award contracts. ( a ) If only one offer is received in response to an order exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold that is placed on a competitive basis, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at 215.371.
( b ) See PGI 216.505-70 for guidance regarding minimum labor category qualifications for orders issued under multiple-award services contracts.
[78 FR 38235, June 26, 2013, as amended at 84 FR 48510, Sept. 13, 2019]
- '10242045 Complaint' of '24-00447-F Seattle'
- '10242045 Recipient Notification Letter' of '24-00447-F Seattle'
|  | (1) | The      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter      ended February 27, 2010, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                       |   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|  /s/ Fred      R. Adams, Jr.                                     |   |   |        |   |
| Fred      R. Adams, Jr.                                                    |   |   |        |   |
| Chairman      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                     |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                       |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                       |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Timothy      A. Dawson                                            |   |   |   |   |
| Timothy      A. Dawson                                                     |   |   |   |   |
| Vice      President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and      Secretary |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                       |   |   |   |   |
| Date:      March 31, 2010                                                  |   |   |   |   |

----
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SULLIVAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against Patrick Sullivan.

No edition. Motion granted.
M. P. No. 74-141.

#### Donald Hill *v.*James W. Mullen, *Warden.*

*William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Peter DiBiase,*Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for respondent.

Motion of petitioner to remand is granted, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court for the sole purpose of hearing and determining petitioner’s motion to reduce sentence under Super. R. Crim. P. 35. Thereafter the papers are to be returned forthwith.
#### Madeline Arnold et al., Appellants, v. Margaret Doran, Respondent.

Motion by appellants for leave to appeal as poor persons granted. The appeal will be heard: (1) upon a record consisting of the original papers specified in CPLR 5526, including a typewritten transcript of the stenographic minutes — such transcript to be prepared and settled in accordance with CPLR 5525; and (2) upon appellants’ typewritten brief, prepared in accordance with the applicable rules (CPLR 5525-5531; Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., pt. 1, rule I, subd. [7] ; rule IY, subd. 1, pars. [A], [D] ). Six copies of the typewritten brief shall be filed and one copy served on the respondent. This determination is without prejudice to an application by appellants as poor persons, pursuant to statute (CPLR 1102, subd. [b]), *to the trial court,*upon notice to the County Attorney of Nassau County, to be furnished (without fee) with a transcript of the stenographic minutes of the trial. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-02579 Document #: 13 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:62
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
[LEGEND]
THIS SCHEDULE HAS BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE" 
(FAS 128) AND CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
[/LEGEND]
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         207,264
<SECURITIES>                                   951,816
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,869
<INVENTORY>                                     91,943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               955,084
<PP&E>                                         906,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                 320,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,226,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          249,951
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,428
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,798,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,226,372
<SALES>                                        582,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               968,678
<CGS>                                          104,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               471,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,887   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,010 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                147,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,587
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            118,348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,348
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98<F1><F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Represents Basic earnings per share.
<F2>Restated to reflect the Company's adoption of FAS 128.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998 for May Drilling Partnership  1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711309
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         157
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311
<PP&E>                                         1,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,118
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,118
<SALES>                                        754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               763
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  99
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                465
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            465
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   465
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  23.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  23.40
        


</TABLE>
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Virginia Department of EducationJames Monroe Building101 North 14th StreetRichmond, VA 23218-2120Phone: (804) 292-3820Website: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

State Council of Higher Education for VirginiaJames Monroe BuildingTenth Floor101 North 14th Street 10th FloorRichmond, VA 23219Phone: (804) 225-2600Fax: (804) 225-2604Website: http://www.schev.edu/

### Special Education Agency

Office of Special EducationVirginia State Department of EducationJames Monroe Building101 North 14th StreetRichmond, VA 23218-2120Phone: (804) 786-8079Website: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/index.shtml

### State Adult Education Agency

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 2120 Richmond, VA 23218-2120 Phone: (804) 786-3347Fax: (804) 225-3352 Website: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/adulted/

Back to state map
#### 208.7303 Procedures.

Follow the procedures at PGI 208.7303 for use of the Precious Metals Recovery Program.

[71 FR 39005, July 11, 2006]
#### 204.7200 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policy and guidance related to antiterrorism awareness training for contractor personnel who require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JULIO ZAM U DIO-DIM A S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50469

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00911-LAB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Julio Za m u dio-Dim a s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 24-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for atte m pte d re e ntry

of a re m ove d a lie n, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED AUG 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Zam

udio-Dim a s c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to use the c o rre c tly c a lc ulat e d Guide line s range a s a n initial be nc hm a

rk at se nte nc ing be c a

use it fa ile d to gra nt a fa st-tra c k de pa

rture unde r U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. W e disa gre e . De p arture s are n ot pa rt of the Guide line s c a lc ulation, a nd we do not re vie w the proc e dura l c orre c tne ss of the de nia l of a re que ste d de pa

rture . Se e Unite d

State s v . Ev ans-Martine

z , 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [I] t is thepre -de pa rture Guide line s se nte nc ing ra

nge tha t the distric t c ourt m

ust c orre c tly

c a lc ulate .” ); Unite d State s v . Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ In a n a l y z i ng c ha l le nge s to a c ourt’ s upwa

rd and downwa

rd de pa rture s . . . unde r Se c tion 5K, we do not e va luate the m

for proc e dura l c orre c tne ss, but ra the r, a s pa

rt of a se nt e nc e ’ s substa ntive re a s ona

ble ne ss.” ). The distric t c ourt sa tisfie d its proc e dura l obliga tions by c o rre c tly c a lc ulating the Guide line s ra nge without the

fa st-tra c k de pa

rture . Zam udio-Dim a s a lso c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt im pose d a substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble se nte nc e be c a

u s e it did not gra

nt the fa st-tra c k de pa

rture . The distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in im

posing Za m udio-Dim a s’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-m onth se nte nc e , in them iddle of the G uide line s ra

n ge , is substa

ntive ly re a sona

ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, inc l uding Zam udio-Dim a s’ s e xte nsive history of im m igration viola

tions. Se eid . AFFIRM E D. 1 3 - 5 0 4 6 9 2
#### Raquel Brown, Respondent, v Willie Kathryn Suggs, Doing Business as Willie Kathryn Suggs Lic. Real Estate Brokers, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[834 NYS2d 526]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.H.O.), entered September 28, 2006, which barred defendant’s second and third affirmative defenses and all further discovery relating to them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s second and third affirmative defenses, alleging, respectively, that plaintiffs claims were barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands, and that plaintiff was not entitled to commissions for transactions that closed after she was terminated because of her alleged theft and breach of fiduciary duty, are barred on the ground of collateral estoppel. The affirmative defenses in question turn upon issues that were necessarily decided, and decided adversely to defendant, in prior proceedings between the parties in which defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues *(see Buechel v Bain,*97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], *cert denied*535 US 1096 [2002]). Although two of defendant’s seven causes of action were previously dismissed in an order entered on defendant’s default, that order has preclusive effect since defendant deliberately refused to participate in the proceedings leading to the default dismissal *(see Brown v Suggs,*38 AD3d 329 [2007]; *see also Matter of Abady,*22 AD3d 71, 84 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
#### Burger *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J.

1. On the trial of one charged with rape, there was no error in refusing to continue the case upon the statement of counsel for the defendant, that he had been employed by the mother of the defendant; that the latter could not testify what- his mother would swear, as he had been in jail and had not talked with her; that the witness had been present at court during the preceding week; that counsel could hot safely go to trial without her presence; that she was more familiar with the facts of the case than any one connected with it; that he “expected her to testify as to the non-chastity of the person alleged to have been raped;” that he had just learned that she was sick; and that the motion was not made for delay but to procure the presence of the defei dant’s mother at the trial, which counsel expected to do, though she had not been subptenaed, as she had herself employed the counsel. Nor did the additional evidence of a witness that the woman was sick make such a showing as rendered it erroneous to refuse a continuance.

*109December 11, 1912.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Martin. Pulaski superior court. September 30, 1912.

*H. F.*Lawson, for plaintiff in error. *T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and *E. D. Graham, solicitor-general,*contra.

(a) If, when tlie motion to continue was made, it apparently had merit, the overruling of it did not appear to have been injurious to the defendant, where the testimony of the State showed a case of rape, and the defendant made no contention that there had been fornication with the consent of the girl alleged to have been raped (a child eight or nine years old), but denied altogether that he had any connection with her.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict of guilty, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### STRAUS et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS’ ASS’N et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Isidor Straus and others against the American Publishers’ Association and others.

No opinion. Motion granted. Question to be certified to Court of Appeals: “Are the facts stated in the complaint in this action sufficient to constitute a cause of action?”