alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 10

- 00652

- CR
Derrick Leon RAGSDALE , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 437th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2008CR0983 Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 8, 2010
DISMISSED The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certifi cation that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on October 4, 2010 , this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows04

- 10

- 00652

- CR

- 2

- defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1. An amended

cer tificate has not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM Do not publish
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-9 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:328
ANDREA J. GREEN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5640

___________ _____________/

Opinion filed August 5, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Frank E. Sheffield , Judge

.

Andrea Green, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS

, WETHERELL

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
**Mailing Address:**U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Career, Technical, and Adult Education400 Maryland Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20202-7100

**Street Address for Visitors:**U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Career, Technical, and Adult Education11th Floor550 12th Street, SWWashington, DC 20202-7100

**Email**: octae@ed.gov**Phone**: (202) 245-7700**Fax**: (202) 245-7838**U.S. Department of Education Information Resource Center**:1-800-872-5327 (toll-free)

**Key Staff****Office of the Assistant Secretary:** Dr. Amy Loyd, Assistant Secretary**Office of the Assistant Secretary:** Jennifer Mishory, Deputy Assistant Secretary**Office of the Assistant Secretary:** Luke Rhine, Deputy Assistant Secretary**Office of the Assistant Secretary:** Dr. DeAndre Jones, Acting Chief of Staff**Office of the Assistant Secretary:** Gregory Fortelny, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Planning**Office of the Assistant Secretary:** Stacey St. Holder, Executive Officer **Division of Adult Education and Literacy :** LaToya Newson, Director **Division of Academic and Technical Education:** Dr. Sharon Miller, Director**Policy, Research, and Evaluation Staff:** Braden Goetz, Director

**Department of Education Employee Locator**
# C_2016480EN.01000101.xml

| 22.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 480/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 480/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 480/01)

On 15 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8280. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8280. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
237.7000 Scope. This subpart— ( a ) Applies to contracts for mortuary services (the care of remains) for military personnel within the United States; and
( b ) May be used as guidance in areas outside the United States for mortuary services for deceased military and civilian personnel.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Press RoomSENIOR STAFF

Color photo—Small

Color photo—Large

Color photo—Print quality

Black and white photo—Small

Black and white photo—Large

Black and white photo—Print quality

For additional photos, visit the Press Room's photo area.

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable view |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Organization Chart |  |
|  |
|  | Employee Locator |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
Functional Statements > Office of the Chief Information Officer

- OCIO Introduction
- Immediate Office of the Chief Information Officer
- Information Assurance Services
- Information Technology Program Services
- Enterprise Technology Services

**Organization Charts**
- Office of the Chief Information Officer   PDF

OCIO Delegations of Authority may be found athttp://www2.ed.gov//about/offices/or/delegations/ocio.html
246.472 Inspection stamping. ( a ) DoD quality inspection approval marking designs (stamps) may be used for both prime contracts and subcontracts. Follow the procedures at PGI 246.472(a) for use of DoD inspection stamps.
( b ) Policies and procedures regarding the use of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) quality status stamps are contained in NASA publications. When requested by NASA centers, the DoD inspector shall use NASA quality status stamps in accordance with current NASA requirements.
[71 FR 27647, May 12, 2006]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Axcess International Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Allan Griebenow, President,Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated.

 

 
| /S/  ALLAN GRIEBENOW                                                |       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| Allan  Griebenow                                                    |       |
| President,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer |       |
|                                                                |       |
| **Dated:  April 14,  2010**                               | ** ** |

** **

----
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
   CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
§1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report on
        Form 10-K of Terabeam, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,
        2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
        (the “Report”), each of the undersigned Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive
        Officer, and Brian J. Sereda, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of the
        Company certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
 15(d)
        of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/
                    Robert E. Fitzgerald
                
                /s/
                    Brian J. SeredaRobert
                    E. Fitzgerald
                
                Brian
                    J. SeredaChief
                    Executive Officer
                
                Chief
                    Financial Officer and TreasurerDate:  March
                    29, 2007
                
                Date:  March
                    29, 2007
#### William Henry HARRISON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Bryon HERBEL, Doctor; Sally Johnson, Doctor; Jean Zula, Doctor; Steven Dewaldt; Moses, Lieutenant; Federal Bureau of Prisons; United States of America, Defendants—Appellees, and Unknown Black Lieutenant; 10 Unknown Corrections Officers; 2 Unknown Corrections Nurses, Defendants.

No. 07-7748.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2008.

Decided: June 12, 2008.

William Henry Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Henry Harrison appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing this action arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Freedom of Information Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 (2000), *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and North Carolina state law; and (2) denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Harrison v. Herbel,*No. 5:05-ct-00550-D (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2007; filed Oct. 10, entered Oct. 11, 2007; Nov. 6, 2007; Mar. 4, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Attached are 8 update files for the National Emissions Inventory
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:128
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:129
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:130
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:131
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:132
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:133
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:134
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:135
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:136
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:137
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:138
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:139
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:140
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:141
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:142
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:143
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:144
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:145
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:146
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:147
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:148
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:149
Case: 1:12-cv-03465 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/28/13 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:150
24.203 Policy. ( a ) The Act specifies, among other things, how agencies shall make their records available upon public request, imposes strict time standards for agency responses, and exempts certain records from public disclosure. Each agency's implementation of these requirements is located in its respective title of the Code of Federal Regulations and referenced in subpart 24.2 of its implementing acquisition regulations.
( b ) Contracting officers may receive requests for records that may be exempted from mandatory public disclosure. The exemptions most often applicable are those relating to classified information, to trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information, to interagency or intra-agency memoranda, or to personal and medical information pertaining to an individual. Other exemptions include agency personnel practices, and law enforcement. Since these requests often involve complex issues requiring an in-depth knowledge of a large and increasing body of court rulings and policy guidance, contracting officers are cautioned to comply with the implementing regulations of their agency and to obtain necessary guidance from the agency officials having Freedom of Information Act responsibility. If additional assistance is needed, authorized agency officials may contact the Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy. A Freedom of Information Act guide and other resources are available at the Department of Justice website under FOIA reference materials: *http://www.usdoj.gov/oip .*
[48 FR 42277, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 31426, Sept. 3, 1986. Redesignated at 62 FR 257, Jan. 2, 1997; 74 FR 2733, Jan. 15, 2009]
242.7400 General. ( a ) Program managers may conclude that they need technical representation in contractor facilities to perform non-contract administration service (CAS) technical duties and to provide liaison, guidance, and assistance on systems and programs. In these cases, the program manager may assign technical representatives under the procedures in 242.7401.
( b ) A technical representative is a representative of a DoD program, project, or system office performing non-CAS technical duties at or near a contractor facility. A technical representative is not— ( 1 ) A representative of a contract administration or contract audit component; or
( 2 ) A contracting officer's representative (see 201.602).
[70 FR 67921, Nov. 9, 2005]
#### 226.570 Drug-free work force.
#### 227.7206 Contracts for architect-engineer services.

Follow 227.7107 when contracting for architect-engineer services.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7261

FREDDY LUDWIG WAMBACH, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00425-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddy Ludwig Wambach, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Freddy Ludwig Wambach seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wambach has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### 2415.605-70 Unsolicited research proposals.

FAR subpart 15.6 outlines the policies and procedures relating to unsolicited proposals. In addition to these requirements, the Department requires that each award made as the result of an unsolicited proposal for research contain a commitment to provide actual cost-sharing. This provision will be included in the award whether or not cost-sharing was part of the unsolicited proposal.

[49 FR 7703, Mar. 1, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 46095, Aug. 23, 1999]
|   | Historical Image Display:Image Title:BAHIA DE PONCE AND APPROACHESDownload Map/Chart(right-click):25683-11-2000.jpgShare this page:TweetImage Metadata:Image:        			25683-11-2000Type:        			Nautical ChartYear:        			2000Scale:        			1:20000Publisher:        			NOAA-NOSSize:        			41.0 x 35.0 |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

Privacy PolicyDisclaimerNOAA's National Ocean ServiceNOAAU.S. Department of Commerce
#### 249.109-7 Settlement by determination.

Follow the procedures at PGI 249.109-7 for settlement of a convenience termination by determination.

[71 FR 27645, May 12, 2006]
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

I, Anthony K. Welch, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Modern Technology Corp. (the "Company"), in compliance with18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, hereby certify that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB forthe period ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Date: ***  October 25,2006***

 

***/s/ Anthony K. Welch               ***

Anthony K. Welch, CEO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Flava Works, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05086

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Latavius Robinson

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, February 4, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Motion hearing held on

2/4/2013. Plaintiff's motion to clarify [17] is denied as moot. For the reasons stated in

open court, Plaintiff is awarded $50,000.00 in damages. Mailed notice(meg, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05086 Document #: 20 Filed: 02/04/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:172
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00231-CR

Style: Earl Roy DeBlanc v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: September 19, 2017

Type of motion: Fourth Motion to Extend Time to File Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant Earl Roy DeBlanc

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: June 19, 2017

Number of extensions granted: 3 Current Due Date: September 18, 2017

Date Requested: October 18, 2017 (121 days from original due date)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: October 18, 2017.

 No further extensions of time will be granted.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Because appellant’s counsel’s fourth extension states that Hurricane Harvey severely

disrupted her work on this case, the Court grants the request, but counsel is warned

that no further extensions are to be granted. See Emergency Order Authorizing

Modification and Suspension of Court Procedures in Proceedings Affected by Disaster,

Misc. Docket No. 17-9091 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(d). 

Accordingly, if appellant’s brief is not filed by October 18, 2017, the Court may abate

this case. See id. 38.8(b)(2).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting for the Court

Date: September 26, 2017
#### 232.072 Financial responsibility of contractors.

Use the policies and procedures in this section in determining the financial capability of current or prospective contractors.

[63 FR 11535, Mar. 9, 1998]