alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

TANG, STEPHENS, and FOIL, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Diego F. DAVILA-NARVAEZ

Hospital Corpsman First Class (E-6), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 201900165

Decided: 22 April 2020

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Stephen Reyes

Sentence adjudged 22 March 2019 by a general court-martial convened at U.S. Naval Forces Japan, Yokosuka, Japan, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 36 months, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge.1

For Appellant:

Lieutenant Daniel E. Rosinski, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

 

1 In accordance with the pretrial agreement, the convening authority suspended 

confinement in excess of 18 months.
United States v. Davila-Narvaez, NMCCA No. 201900165

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
116 STAT. 1480 PUBLIC LAW 107–233—OCT. 1, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2810:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

July 26, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 10, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 107–233

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend the deadline for

the INTELSAT initial public offering.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IPO DEADLINE.

Section 621(5)(A)(i) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962

(47 U.S.C. 763(5)(A)(i)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘October 1, 2001,’’ and inserting ‘‘December

31, 2003,’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2002;’’ and inserting ‘‘June

30, 2004;’’.

Approved October 1, 2002.

Oct. 1, 2002

[S. 2810]
32.608-2 Interest credits.       (a) 						            An equitable interest credit shall be applied under the following circumstances:                                                         (1) 								                When the amount of debt initially determined is subsequently reduced; *e.g.*, through a successful appeal.                                                            (2) 								                When any amount collected by the Government is in excess of the amount found to be due on appeal under the Disputes Clause of the contract.                                                            (3) 								                When the collection procedures followed in a given case result in an overcollection of the debt due.                                                            (4) 								                When the responsible official determines that the Government has unduly delayed payments to the contractor on the same contract at some time during the period to which the interest charge applied, provided an interest penalty was not paid for such late payment.                                                                             (b) 						            Any appropriate interest credits shall be computed under the following procedures:                                                         (1) 								                Interest at the rate under 52.232-17 shall be charged on the reduced debt from the date of collection by the Government until the date the monies are remitted to the contractor.                                                            (2) 								                Interest may not be reduced for any time between the due date under the demand and the period covered by a deferment of collection, unless the contract includes an interest clause; *e.g.*, the clause prescribed in 32.611.                                                            (3) 								                Interest shall not be credited in an amount that, when added to other amounts refunded or released to the contractor, exceeds the total amount that has been collected, or withheld for the purpose of collecting the debt. This limitation shall be further reduced by the amount of any limitation applicable under paragraph (b)(2) of this subsection.    **Parent topic:** 32.608 Interest.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 236]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ236.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1483]]

Public Law 107-236
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 
   Area, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 9, 2002 -  [H.R. 640]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Santa Monica 
Mountains National Recreation Area Adjustment Act. California.>> 

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 16 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Santa Monica Mountains National 
Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 507(c) of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (92 
Stat. 3501; 16 U.S.C. 460kk) establishing Santa Monica Mountains 
National Recreation Area is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking `` `Boundary Map, Santa 
        Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, California, and Santa 
        Monica Mountains Zone', numbered SMM-NRA 80,000, and dated May 
        1978'' and inserting `` `Santa Monica Mountains National 
        Recreation Area and Santa Monica Mountains Zone, California, 
        Boundary Map', numbered 80,047-C and dated August 2001''; and
            (2) by adding the following sentence after the third 
        sentence of paragraph (2)(A): ``Lands within the `Wildlife 
        Corridor Expansion Zone' identified on the boundary map referred 
        to in paragraph (1) may be acquired only by donation or with 
        donated funds.''.

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

    Section 507 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (92 
Stat. 3501; 16 U.S.C. 460kk) establishing Santa Monica Mountains 
National Recreation Area is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``Committee on Natural 
        Resources'' and inserting ``Committee on Resources'';
            (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ``of certain'' in 
        the first sentence and inserting ``certain''; and

[[Page 116 STAT. 1484]]

            (3) in subsection (n)(5), by striking ``laws'' in the second 
        sentence and inserting ``laws,''.

    Approved October 9, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 640:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 170-90 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 107-204 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    June 6, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    Aug. 1, considered and passed 
                                        Senate, amended.
                                    Sept. 24, House concurred in Senate 
                                        amendment.

                                  <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10011

Summary Calendar

 

LEROY HICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY UNELL; DALLAS COUNTY; 

JOHN VANCE, DA,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-2355

- - - - - - - - - -

April 1, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leroy Hicks appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

dismissal with prejudice of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP),

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hicks contends that against his court

appointed attorney, Gary Unell, and John Vance, the district

attorney who prosecuted Hicks’ criminal case, conspired to
No. 96-10011

- 2 -

maliciously and improperly convict him, that Unell was

ineffective, and that the indictment against him was void.

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Hicks’

§ 1983 claims which directly attack his underlying conviction

because Hicks’ conviction has not been invalidated or called into

question and because district attorney Vance is absolutely immune

from damages. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372

(1994); Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, Hicks’ appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. Hicks’ motion for failure of process is DENIED as

unnecessary.

We caution Hicks that the filing of frivolous appeals could

result in sanctions. E.g. Smith V. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417, 418

(5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir.

1991). We advise Hicks to review any other appeals pending in

this court at this time and recommend that he move to withdraw

any appeal that is frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION DENIED.
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex parte Cheyenne Bigelow

No. 06

- 19

- 00052

- CR Appeal from the 76th District Court of
Titus County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 40781 ).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss,

Just ice Burgess and Justice Stevens
participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Cheyenne Bigelow, has adequately indicated h er inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 24, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
45.606 Contractor scrap procedures.

(a) The property administrator should, in coordination with the plant clearance officer, ensure that

contractor scrap disposal processes, methods, and practices allow for effective, efficient, and proper

disposition and are properly documented in the contractor’s property management procedures.

(b) The property administrator should determine the extent to which separate disposal processing or

physical segregation for different scrap types is or may be required. Such scrap may require

physical segregation, unique disposal processing, or separate plant clearance reporting. For

example, the scope of work may create scrap-

(1) Consisting of sensitive items;

(2) Containing hazardous materials or wastes;

(3) Contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes;

(4) That is classified or otherwise controlled;

(5) Containing precious or strategic metals; or

(6) That is dangerous to public health or safety.

(c) Absent contract terms and conditions to the contrary, the Government may abandon parts

removed and replaced from property as a result of normal maintenance actions or removed from

property as a result of the repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification process.

Parent topic: Subpart 45.6 - Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal
42.1304 Government delay of work.       (a) 						            The clause at 52.242-17, Government Delay of Work, provides for the administrative settlement of contractor claims that arise from delays and interruptions in the contract work caused by the acts, or failures to act, of the contracting officer. This clause is not applicable if the contract otherwise specifically provides for an equitable adjustment because of the delay or interruption; *e.g.,* when the Changes clause is applicable.                                          (b) 						            The clause does not authorize the contracting officer to order a suspension, delay, or interruption of the contract work and it shall not be used as the basis or justification of such an order.                                          (c) 						            If the contracting officer has notice of an unordered delay or interruption covered by the clause, the contracting officer shall act to end the delay or take other appropriate action as soon as practicable.                                          (d) 						            The contracting officer shall retain in the file a record of all negotiations leading to any adjustment made under the clause, and related certified cost or pricing data, or data other than certified cost or pricing data.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 42.13 - Suspension of Work, Stop-Work Orders, and Government Delay of Work
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHN DOE 1, as parent and natural guardian

of PLAINTIFF C, his minor child; JOHN DOE 2,

as parent and natural guardian of PLAINTIFF D,

his minor child; JANE DOE 1, as parent and natural 

guardian of PLAINTIFF B and PLAINTIFF M, her

minor children; JANE DOE 2, as parent and natural 

guardian of PLAINTIFF J, her minor child; 

JANE DOE 3, as parent and natural guardian of 

PLAINTIFF S, her minor child; and PLAINTIFF L, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:03CV260/RS

JOSEPH R. FRANCIS; MRA HOLDING LLC,

a California limited liability company; MANTRA

FILMS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation

(d/b/a “Girls Gone Wild”); AERO FALCONS, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company; MARK D.

SCHMITZ; and RYAN DAVID SIMKIN,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Before the court are the Motion of Hunton & Williams, LLP to Withdraw from

Representation of The Mantra Defendants (Document 156) and the Joint Motion for

Extension of Time for Rule 26(f) Conference (Document 171).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Hunton & Williams, LLP is granted leave to withdraw from further

representation of defendants, Joseph R. Francis, MRA Holding, LLC,

Mantra Films, Inc., and Aero Falcons, LLC. 

Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 172 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 2
2. Hunton & Williams, LLP shall remain subject to the court’s jurisdiction for

resolution of the Order to Show Cause (Document 153) and Plaintiffs’

Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defense Counsel Should Not Be

Subject to Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927 (Document 147).

3. Hunton & Williams, LLP shall file not later than June 21, 2006, any

additional grounds to show good cause why it should not be subject to

sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927 for the reasons set forth in

Document 147. 

4. Not later than June 21, 2006, defendants, Joseph R. Francis, MRA

Holding, LLC, Mantra Films, Inc., and Aero Falcons, LLC. shall cause new

counsel to file notice of appearance or shall file notice of their intent to

proceed pro se.

5. The Initial Scheduling Order (Document 145) is withdrawn. A revised

scheduling order will be issued after June 21, 2006.

ORDERED on June 1, 2006.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 172 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Mario Lugo, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

Submitted May 21, 2007;

decided June 28, 2007

Reported below, 2006 NY Slip Op 68880(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:90cr4007-WS

ERIC A. PARKER,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 133)

docketed November 24, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

Rule 60(d) motion (doc. 130) be denied. The defendant has filed objections (doc. 138)

to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 133) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

Case No 4:90cr4007-WS

2. The defendant’s Rule 60(d) motion (doc. 130) is summarily DISMISSED as an

unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.

3. The defendant's request (doc. 139) for a certificate of appealability is DENIED

because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
§ 3201.123 Concrete curing agents. ( a ) *Definition.* Concrete curing agents are products that are designed to enhance and control the curing process of concrete.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 59 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased concrete curing agents. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased concrete curing agents.
( d ) *Determining overlap with a designated product category in the EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) program.* Qualifying products within this product category may overlap with the EPA's CPG-designated recovered content product category of Construction Products: Cement and Concrete. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information on the BioPreferred Program's website about the intended uses of the product, information on whether the product contains any recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has been tested. This information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether a qualifying biobased product overlaps with the EPA's CPG-designated product category of Construction Products: Cement and Concrete and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note 1 to Paragraph ( d
):
Concrete curing agents within this designated product category can compete with similar concrete curing agents with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CPG-designated Construction Products: Cement and Concrete containing recovered materials as products for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.12.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
§ 51.1308 Basis for calculating percentages. ( a ) When the numerical count is marked in the container or when pears are packed in a container to weigh 5 pounds or less, percentages shall be calculated on the basis of count.
( b ) When the minimum diameter or minimum and maximum diameters are marked on a container packed to weigh more than 5 pounds or when the pears are jumbled in a container packed to weigh more than 5 pounds, percentages shall be calculated on the basis of weight or an equivalent basis.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00535

- CV

Gary A. Shepherd and Linda C. Shepherd , Appellant s

v.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A., as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loans Trust 2007

- 4, Asset

- Backed Certificates, Series 2007

- 4, and MW S Acquisitions, LLC , Appellee s

FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY NO. 21939 , THE HONORABLE JAMES D. SQUIRE , JUDGE PRESIDIN G

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant s Gary A. Shepherd and Linda C. Shepherd and appell ee s Wells Fargo

Ban k N.A., as Trustee for Option O n e Mortgage Loans Trust 2007

- 4
, Asset Backed Certificates,

Series 2007

- 4, and MWS Acquisitions, L LC
, ha ve filed a join t agreed moti on to dismiss this
appeal because the parties have reached a full sett lement of all claims

. T h e parties have agreed

that costs of the appeal will be paid by the par ty incurring the cost s

. See Tex. R. App. 42.1(d).
We g rant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. R. 42.1(a) , 43.2(f)

.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. B a ker , Justice

Before Justices Baker, Ke lly, and Smith

Dismissed O n Joint Motion

Filed: August 11, 2023
Exhibit 32



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



In connection with the Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald L. Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August 17, 2005By:

/s/ Ronald L. StewartRonald L. StewartChief Executive Officer and Director




In connection with the Report,
I, Jeffrey J. Siemers, Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative and Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August 17, 2005By:

/s/ Jeffrey J. SiemersJeffrey J. SiemersExecutive Vice President, Chief Administrative and Financial Officer and Secretary




33