alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 28.301 Measurement: humidity; temperature.

The length of staple of any cotton shall be the normal length by measurement, without regard to quality or value, of a typical portion of its fibers under a relative humidity of the atmosphere of 65 percent and a temperature of 70 °F.
March 14, 1995

Mr. Steven K. Bevilaqua
2836 Fox Trail Road
Fayetteville, AK 72703

Dear Steve:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of KLLM Transport
Services, Inc., I am pleased to offer you the position of
President and Chief Executive Officer.  Your background and
career accomplishments have clearly demonstrated your ability
to successfully lead our company.

This letter outlines the terms of our offer which is subject
to favorable results from:

      A complete physical examination at a medical facility of
      the company's choosing and at our expenses.

      Comprehensive reference checks to be conducted on your
      background and work experience/performance.

Your compensation package would include the following:

      Base salary:  $225,000 annually to be paid in equal
      installments monthly.

      Bonus opportunity: based on the company's new EVA plan,
      a copy of which you have received.  Your 1995 bonus under
      the plan will be guaranteed at a minimum of $50,000.

      Stock options:  150,000 shares to be vested 20 percent at
      your date of employment and in equal amounts of 20
      percent each year on your first, seconds, third and
      fourth anniversaries with the company.  These options
      will be priced at $15.00.  You will have 10 years from
      the date of employment to exercise these options.

      Relocation:  $75,000 to paid in a lump sum the day you
      begin employment.  This sum is to be used to cover your
      expenses related to moving, temporary living trips
      to/from Arkansas during the transition, house hunting
      trips, buying and selling costs for a home and other
      miscellaneous expenses related to your relocation.  This
      amount will be grossed up to eliminate any income tax
      burden to you in 1995.

      Separation agreement:  should KLLM deem it necessary to
      terminate your employment with the company at any time on
      or before January 1, 1997, you will be paid your annual
      base salary in 12 equal monthly installments following
      the date of your termination.  The company will be under
      no obligation to pay you any amount if you are terminated
      for cause.

      Other perquisites:  as provided by company policy for all
      KLLM executives.

Steve, I am truly excited about the future of KLLM and our
partnership together.  I believe this financial package
reflects our strong commitment to your success.  If this offer
of employment and the conditions under which it is made are
acceptable to you, please sign this letter in appropriate
space below and return it to me as soon as possible.

Other members of the Board and I are looking forward to
hosting you and Penny when you visit Jackson early next week.

Sincerely,


S/Billy
William J. Liles, Jr.
Chairman of the Board

WJL/cc


Accepted by:                                 Date:


S/S.K. Bevilaqua                             3-22-95
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MEDTRONIC INC., Appellant

v.

NUVASIVE, INC., Appellee

______________________

2014

- 1722

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,247.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J USTIN J. O LIVER , Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, Washington, D C, argued for appellant. Also represented by S TEPHEN E DWARD B ELISLE ; N INA S HREVE , New York,
NY.

M ICHAEL T. R OSATO

, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC

, Seattle, WA , argued for appellee. Also repr esented by P AUL D AVI D T RIPODI

, II , Los Angeles, CA ; C RAIG E. C OUNTRYMAN

, Fish & Richardson, P.C., San Diego, CA;
F RANK S CHERKENBACH

, Boston, MA; S TEPHEN R EYNOLD S CHAEFER

, M ICHAEL J. K ANE , Minneapolis, MN.______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK
, O’M ALLEY

, and T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 14, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 31, 2017

NO. 03

- 17

- 00561

- CV

In the Matter of N. P.

APPEAL FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, FI ELD, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINI ON BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on August 10, 2017. Having rev iewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

order . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order

. Because appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 31.1 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

I, Bertrand F. Cambou, certify that: 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spansion Inc. (the “Company”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Company’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

c)disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

Date: November 2, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Baker, 7:20cv39

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 12

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14)

2. Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08)

SO ORDERED, on this 15th day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 1
§ 250.64 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). ( a ) *Distribution of donated foods in TEFAP.* The Department provides donated foods in TEFAP to the distributing agency (*i.e.,* the State agency, in accordance with 7 CFR part 251) for further distribution in the State, in accordance with 7 CFR part 251. State agencies and recipient agencies must comply with the requirements of this part in the distribution, control, and use of donated foods, to the extent that such requirements are not inconsistent with the requirements in 7 CFR part 251.
( b ) *Types of donated foods distributed.* Donated foods distributed in TEFAP include Section 27 foods, and donated foods provided under Section 32, Section 416, or Section 709, as available.
98-1418.

#### Fetzer v. Morgan.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00425-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.M., A.M., A.M., J.M., AND J.M.M.,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02128

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s final order terminating appellant’s 

parental rights. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to 

withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no 

meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re RR, No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio, May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to 

appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio, Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). 

When counsel “cannot, in good faith, advance any arguable grounds of error,” counsel’s 

Anders brief must “contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.” High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978). The brief must: refer the court to anything in the record that might arguably support 

the appeal; discuss the evidence adduced at trial; supply the court with ready references to the 

record; and supply the court with appropriate citations to legal authorities. Id., at 812-13. The 

Anders brief must “demonstrate that counsel has conscientiously examined the record and 

determined that the appeal is so frivolous that the appellant is not entitled to counsel on appeal.” 

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

The brief filed by appointed counsel on behalf of appellant C.M. does not meet these 

requirements. Specifically, the brief does not discuss the evidence adduced at trial and it does 

not contain any legal analysis of anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. In 

sum, the brief does not contain a professional evaluation of the record and does not demonstrate 

there are no arguable grounds for appeal.
We therefore strike counsel’s Anders brief and order appellant’s brief redrawn. We order 

the redrawn brief due October 2, 2015. We further order counsel to notify appellant that the 

Anders brief has been stricken and there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 366-1 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 2
AfpBttst¿ Biuisiun uf thp fÞurremv g,saú

uf thu ËtEtB uf ts(Btu @urh

ÉÞ¿runù lluùtriul B¿pErtm¿nt

ll, AÍrilunn¿ Agu¡tïnu, 6.Ltrb uf th¿ Appe[[uf ¿ Biuiøiun u f ttlt

Suprem¿ (luurf ut tf¡u Stsft ut Bleru @urh, $¿tunù 3luùitist Bupurfrnent,

ùu [Br¿hg ttrtitg f f¡ut lpuutll" lprnnuth ruuø ùulg

lir¿nø¿ù snh sùmitfeù tu prurfif,p rã sn AÍfurneg unù 0'sanxtLur-sf-fruru

in stt tf¡e ruurts sf tl¡e Sfut¿, strurùing tu tl¡e luruø uf tt¡e Stsf¿ unù tf¡e

ruurt ruLtx snù urùerø, un tf¡e L¿tÍl hug uf April lgtg,

fiux ùutg tshen unù øuhxrrih¿ù tf¡e uutf¡ uf uffite prexriheh hg luru, f¡uø

hB¿n enrul[eù în tf¡e ßr.LL uf AtturnÊAñ snù (ûuunxtLsrx-,fit-4sru un tile in

mg uftire, l¡ux ùutg rtgixtweù uift¡ tf¡e uùminixfrstiuB uffite uf tl¡t

ruurtø, snù urrurùing tu tf¡e r¿rurùø uf tt¡ix tuurt ix in guuù øtunùing ux

sn Atturneg unù 6'sunøtLur-ut-7[sru.

lln îililiftt¿ss lmh¿r¿uf, !l f¡uue f¡e reuntu s¿f

mU hsnù unù utf i*Bù t\e øusl uf ssiù

Appellute Ðiui¡iun un 4tcg 17, ¿frL9.

@Ltrk uf tf¡e 6.¡urt

4-A

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 366-1 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

OSCAR MARTINEZ

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§

§ No. 6 23 , 2015

§

§

§ Court Below : Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 0905009708

§

§

Submitted: January 7, 2016

Decided: February 23 , 2016

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND , and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 23rd day of February 2016

, after careful consideration of the

appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal,

the Court concludes that the October 23, 2015 order of the Superior Court

dismissing the appellant’s second motion for postconviction reli ef should be

affirmed. The motion was subject to summary dismissal under Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61 because it was the appellant’s second motion for postconviction

relief after he pled guilty

. 1 The appellant also failed to plead with particularity the

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that second or subsequent motion for postconviction

relief shall be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after trial and pleads with

particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the mov ant is actually innocent or a

claim that a new rule of constitutional law is retroactively applicable and renders the conviction

invalid).2

existence of new evidence that created a strong inference of actual innocence 2 or a

new rule of constitutional law that wa s retroactively applicable

. 3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(i).

3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(ii).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2007 

To eliminate the limitation on the period for which borrowers are eligible 

for guaranteed assistance under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2013 

Mr. WELCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To eliminate the limitation on the period for which borrowers 

are eligible for guaranteed assistance under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD BOR4 ROWERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED 

5 ASSISTANCE. 

6 Section 319 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural De7 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 1949) is amended by striking 

8 subsection (b). 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
*The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral

estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th

Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 6 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID ARNOLD DEFOE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 97-4096

(D.C. No. 97-CV-130-B)

(District of Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, MCKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Upon a review of the Application for Certificate of Appealability, and

materials submitted by the petitioner in support thereof, it does not appear that

petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. Accordingly, his Application for

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED without prejudice to renewal when

exhaustion has occurred in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) and (c) and

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971). 
- 2 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50128

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

DAMON H. DOWNS,

 Petitioner-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-94-CV-386

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Damon H. Downs's application for a certificate of probable

cause (CPC) is denied because a CPC is not necessary for a

challenge to the execution of a federal sentence. See Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b). Downs's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis (IFP) is denied because he has not indicated how

the federal government has any involvement in his continuation in

state custody. United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 835 F.2d 585,

587 (5th Cir. 1988); Scott v. United States, 434 F.2d 11, 21 (5th
No. 95-50128

-2-

Cir. 1970); see Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.

1982). Downs's appeal is frivolous and is dismissed as such. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th

Cir. R. 42.2.

CPC DENIED, IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED.
98-1015.

#### State v. Scarborough.

Warren App. No. CA97-08-088. The discretionary appeal is allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II only. Cause held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cascade Technologies Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jacqueline Danforth, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      January 2, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Jacqueline
      DanforthName:
      Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
      Secretary/Treasurer. Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
2006-0972.

#### State v. Dovala.

Lorain App. No. 05CA008767. On motion for stay of judgment. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.
Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686   Filed 02/28/23   Page 1 of 6

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686   Filed 02/28/23   Page 2 of 6

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686   Filed 02/28/23   Page 3 of 6

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686   Filed 02/28/23   Page 4 of 6

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686   Filed 02/28/23   Page 5 of 6

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686   Filed 02/28/23   Page 6 of 6
Attachment 3

Laboratory Report of Leachate Samples Collected

from the Slag Storage Area in May 2010Attachment 4

Polk Power Station

Unit 1 Wastewater Flow Diagrams
#### The State ex rel. Lair, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Lair v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 398.]

(No. 97-2503

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 21, 1998.)

*399*William D. Snyder & Associates*and *John Lesko,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Steven P. Fixler,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission and Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

*Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P.,*and *Samuel M. Duran,*for appellee Keebler Company.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 10-50]

# AGENCY:

Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-50 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: November 9, 2010.

Morgan F. Park,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 69923)          ( print page 69924)          ( print page 69925)          ( print page 69926)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[FR Doc. 2010-28768 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C