alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-59,823-07

EX PARTE JAMES DOUGLAS JONES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2003-197D IN THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM CALDWELL COUNTY

Per curiam. ALCALA, J., would grant relief.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault on a public servant and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00683-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 20,

2009) (not designated for publication).

In a supplemental ground, Applicant contends that trial counsel failed to properlyinvestigate

Applicant’s case and advise him of the law applicable to his case. The trial court made findings of

fact and conclusions of law and recommended that we grant relief. We believe that the record should
2

be further developed.

Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is not and the trial court elects to hold

a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to

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

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall determine whetherthe factual basis of Applicant’s supplemental ground

was unavailable on the date Applicant filed a previously considered application. The trial court shall

specifically determine whether the factual basis of Applicant’s supplemental ground was

ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before the date Applicant filed a

previously considered application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 4(c). The trial court

shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and

appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: October 5, 2016

Do not publish
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3207 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,1,2-2-Tetrafluoroethene, oxidized, 

polymerized. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,1,2-2- 

Tetrafluoroethene, oxidized, polymerized. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,1,2-2-TETRAFLUOROETHENE, OXIDIZED, PO4 LYMERIZED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.39.16 1,1,2-2-Tetrafluoroethene, oxidized, polymerized (CAS No. 69991–61–3) (provided for in subheading 3907.20) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3207 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Part 5627 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS       Subpart 5627.3 - PATENT RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS                                                         5627.305 Administration of Patent Rights.                                                                           5627.305-3 Securing invention rights acquired by the Government.                                                                                                                            Subpart 5627.70 - INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS, LICENSES, AND ASSIGNMENTS                                                         5627.7004 Requirements for Filing an Administrative Claim for Patent Infringements.    Subpart 5627.3 - PATENT RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS     5627.305 Administration of Patent Rights.    *(Revised*          *June 2021*          *)* 5627.305-3 Securing invention rights acquired by the Government.    (a) Upon receipt of a DD form 882, Report of Inventions and Subcontracts, as prescribed in DFARS 227.304-1, or a letter prepared in accordance with relevant patent rights clause(s), contracting officers shall immediately forward the submission to the RAO to confirm that the contractor has reported all subject inventions. Forward the DD882 or other submission, along with the RAO input, to legal counsel for review and appropriate action. See DCG templates for process flowchart and guidance.       (b) No legal review of the DD882 is required for phase I SBIR contracts if:       (i) the KO obtains written assertion from the RAO stating that they have reviewed all interim and final report/data, deliverables, and,       (ii) the RAO concur with the contractor's affirmations on the DD882 that no patents are applicable.Subpart 5627.70 - INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS, LICENSES, AND ASSIGNMENTS     5627.7004 Requirements for Filing an Administrative Claim for Patent Infringements.    *(Revised July 2010)*          *(Revised September 2013-reorganization)*       (a) All contracting offices shall acknowledge receipt of patent right allegations and then forward a copy of the documents to SOF AT&L-KM/KX/KB as appropriate, and legal counsel.              HQ, United States Special Operations Command       Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L)       SOFARS 5627       February 2007
Exhibit 10.11

RESTRICTED STOCK CANCELLATION AGREEMENT

This Restricted Stock Cancellation Agreement (this
Agreement), effective as of January 19, 2007, is made by and between Guidance Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and Victor Limongelli (die
Executive).

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into that certain employment
agreement, dated as of December 6, 2007 (the Employment Agreement);

WHEREAS, in connection with the
Employment Agreement, the Company granted the Executive 100,000 restricted shares of the Companys common stock (the Restricted Stock) pursuant to that certain Restricted Stock Agreement (the Restricted
Stock Agreement), dated as of December 6, 2007, and the Guidance Software, Inc. First Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (the Plan);

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive mutually desire to cancel the Restricted Stock and terminate any and all of the Executives right, title and
interest in or to the Restricted Stock.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and undertakings contained herein, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

1. The Restricted Stock, the Restricted Stock Agreement, and all of the Executives rights and interest therein and thereunder are hereby cancelled and terminated.

2. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation, validity, administration, enforcement and performance of the terms of this
Agreement regardless of the law that might be applied under principles of conflicts of law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the
Executive have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written.



|                        |  |                 |  |           |  |                          |  | 
|----------------------- |  | --------------- |  | --------- |  | ------------------------ |  | 
|GUIDANCE SOFTWARE, INC. |  |                 |  | EXECUTIVE
|                        |  |                 | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Dale Fuller |  |           |  | /s/ Victor T. Limongelli
|Its:                    |  | Dale Fuller     |  |           |  | Victor T. Limongelli    
|                        |  | 1.23.2008       |  |           |  | (Print Name)
§ 766.51 General. ( a ) DSA is available to borrowers with program loans who suffered losses as a result of a natural disaster.
( b ) DSA is not intended to circumvent other servicing available under this part.
( c ) Non-program loans may be serviced under this subpart for borrowers who also have program loans.
0IJTIl<G ~.~SYMllOI.

4!JM-1-

~

c.~

[4910-13-PI

Federal Aviation Administration

RIN 2120-AA64

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON

IDocket No. FAA-2010-0642; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD; Amendme t

WOO ;41- /0 ''Qh

39_*"'***' AD 2010-**-**] II I-

, OllTING5YM

.ANfi' -.(0 I

14 CFR Part 39

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Model

BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products lis ed

'n

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl)

OI!T1NQ SYMBOL

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe "mAlSlSI()

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: DATE

OuTING SYMBOL

* *' *' [FJuelleaks and failed fasteners (have been reported] in the region of

the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2. *' * *

• • • • • • •

The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of the rear spar root joint ~mALSlSlG

attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the "ore

wing, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to

require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAI Systems Corporation (the Company) forthe period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William B. Kretzmer, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: September 23, 2005 | By:    | /s/  William  B. Kretzmer |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                          |   | William B. Kretzmer            |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer        |

 

----
208.7403 Acquisition procedures.

(S-90) In accordance with DFARS PGI 208.7403(5)(iii), the designated management official is the

DISA CIO.

(S-91) If requiring officials determine that the JELA supports a requirement, but there is an unusual

or compelling circumstance to use another source, the waiver must be completed and submitted

with the acquisition package. The waiver is located at

https://www.ditco.disa.mil/contracts/SampleDocTemplates.asp.

Parent topic: SUBPART 208.74 – ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS
#### § 905.8 Prepare for market.

*Prepare for market* means to wash, grade, size, or place fruit (whether or not wrapped) into any container whatsoever; but such term shall not include the harvesting of fruit.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 289 

To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health courts 

through fiscal year 2011. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2005 

Mr. DEWINE (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. DOMENICI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

mental health courts through fiscal year 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 Section 1001(a)(20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

5 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

6 3793(a)(20)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2001 

7 through 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2006 through 

8 2011’’. 

Æ
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 22 of 22
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3239 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3239

  To require full disclosure of insurance coverage and noncoverage by 
     insurance companies and provide for Federal Trade Commission 
                              enforcement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

 Mr. Dayton (for himself and Mr. Lott) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require full disclosure of insurance coverage and noncoverage by 
     insurance companies and provide for Federal Trade Commission 
                              enforcement.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Uniform Insurance Non-Coverage 
Disclosure Act''.

SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL ACT.

    Each individual policy written by a State-registered insurance 
company shall include on the front or first page of the policy a 
``Noncoverage Disclosure'' box restating in plain English, in bold font 
twice the size of the text in the body of the policy, all conditions, 
exclusions, and other limitations pertaining to coverage under that 
policy, regardless of the underlying insurance product in question.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) In General.--Any violation of this Act shall be treated as a 
violation of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices.
    (b) Regulations.--The Federal Trade Commission (referred to in this 
Act as the ``Commission'') shall promulgate regulations to carry out 
this Act.

SEC. 4. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--The Commission, acting through the Division of 
Financial Practices in the Bureau of Consumer Protection, shall prevent 
any person from violating this Act, and any regulation promulgated 
thereunder, in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same 
jurisdiction, powers and duties as though all applicable terms and 
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) 
were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
    (b) Penalties.--Any person who violates regulations promulgated 
under this Act shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the 
privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act 
as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act were incorporated into and made part of this Act.
    (c) Authority Preserved.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
                                 <all>
```
01529024.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No.: 2:06-cv-618-MEF

)

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

COMES NOW Defendant Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (“Southern Energy”) and

hereby seeks leave of this Court to file the attached Sur-Reply in Support of its Motion

for Judgment on the Pleadings. In support of this motion, Southern Energy hereby states

as follows:

1. Southern Energy has previously submitted to this Honorable Court, in

support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, an Order from the United States

District Court for Western District of Louisiana in Guidroz v. Champion Enterprises,

Inc., granting Defendants’ Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss on the exact same preemption

grounds that Southern Energy seeks for this Court to dismiss the Complaint in the case at

bar.

2. Last week, Plaintiff Harold Murphy filed a Motion for Leave to Amend

[Its Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings], seeking permission to

submit to this Court an August 1, 2007 Minutes of Hearing and Order from the Guidroz

Court.

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 59-2 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
01529024.1 2

3. Because Southern Energy believes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

misconstrues the substance, scope, and effect of the Guidroz Court’s August 1

st Minutes

of Hearing and Order, Southern Energy seeks leave to file the attached Sur-Reply.

4. The Sur-Reply very briefly sets forth the proper context of the recent

Guidroz order and demonstrates why the Guidroz Court’s rulings in fact support Southern

Energy’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Southern Energy Homes, Inc. hereby respectfully

requests the opportunity to file the attached Sur-Reply in support of its Motion for

Judgment on Pleadings.

_s/Thomas W. Thagard III ______________

Lee E. Bains, Jr. (BAI005)

Thomas W. Thagard, III (THA006)

Edward S. Sledge IV (SLE008)

Attorneys for Southern Energy Homes, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.

1901 Sixth Avenue North

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

Birmingham, AL 35203

(205) 254-1000 (Telephone)

(205) 254-1999 (Facsimile)

lbains@maynardcooper.com

tthagard@maynardcooper.com

sledge@maynardcooper.com

W. Scott Simpson

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100

Birmingham, Alabama 35216-3084

205.876.1600 (Telephone)

205.876.1616 (Facsimile)

wssimpson@ritcheysimpson.com

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 59-2 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
01529024.1 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 15th, 2007 I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such

filing to the following:

Charles Lance Gould, Esq.

s/Thomas W. Thagard III

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 59-2 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 766.56 Security requirements.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65044, Aug. 8, 2024.

If, prior to executing the appropriate DSA Agency documents, the borrower is not current on all FLP loans, the borrower must execute and provide to the Agency a best lien obtainable on all of their assets except those listed under § 766.112(b).
(September 19, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Gerald Smith, James Roberts, Sr., and Lawrence Dormer, Defendants.

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: We conclude that defendants have not on this application met their burden of demonstrating that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Niagara County (CPL 230.20, subd 2). If it develops during the *voir dire*that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may then be made. The relief requested in the application before us now is premature. (See *People v Di Piazza,*24 NY2d 342; *People*v *Hatch,*46 AD2d 721; *People v Sekou,*45 AD2d 982, app dsmd 35 NY2d 844.) We note, however, that under the circumstances of this case, the retrial should be held at a Trial Term in Niagara Falls. Present—Dillon, P. J., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.