alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5



       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,802
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,148,832
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,172,634)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (32,511)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (266)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (266)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DOUGLAS BRADLEY, a/k/a New York Dougie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-94-26)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Thomas Love, Jr., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.

Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Bradley appeals from the imposition of a ninety-month

sentence for distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (1988). Bradley's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one

potentially meritorious issueCthat certified copies of Bradley's

prior convictions demonstrating the fact of prior legal representation should not have been considered by the sentencing court

because Bradley did not learn of their existence in time to sufficiently investigate their validity. Without these copies, the

attorney argues, there would be no evidence that Bradley was

represented on either of these convictions and therefore they could

not have been used to increase his criminal history category under

Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967).

During the sentencing hearing Bradley's counsel expressed a

desire to have more time to investigate the certified copies of

conviction but failed to specifically object to their admission.

Accordingly, as we discern no evidence of plain error, we hold that

Bradley has waived review of this claim. United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725 (1993).

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have

examined the entire record in this case and find no other

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bradley's

sentence and require that counsel inform Bradley, in writing, of

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Bradley requests that a petition be filed, but
3

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

Bradley.

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
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL

EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Agricon Global Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert K Bench, President 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) | 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: | February 21, 2013 |  | By: | /s/ Robert K Bench            | 
|----- | ----------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|      |                   |  |     | Robert K Bench                | 
|      |                   |  |     | President                     | 
|      |                   |  |     | (Principal Executive Officer) |
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,708-01

EX PARTE RAYMON BOUDREAUX, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 742110-A IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY 

Per curiam. KEEL, J., not participating.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Eighth

Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Boudreaux v. State, No. 08-97-00326-CR (Tex. App. —

El Paso November 19, 1998) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application for

a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

On December 7, 2020, the trial court entered an order designating issues. The district clerk

properly forwarded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

73.4(b)(5). However, the application was forwarded before the trial court made findings of fact and

conclusions of law. We remand this application to the trial court to complete its evidentiary
investigation and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 

Filed: June 16, 2021

Do not publish
HomeMali

# Mali

93 items

        -    TIAS  		Mali (22-914) – Agreement Concerning Import Restrictions	  September 14, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Mali	  August 18, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – August 16, 2022	  Ned PriceAugust 16, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Humanitarian Assistance for Africa	  Ned PriceAugust 5, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Mali	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mali	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		On the ECOWAS Summit	  Ned PriceJuly 6, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 5, 2022	  Ned PriceJuly 5, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Civilian Deaths in Mali	  Ned PriceJune 22, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 14, 2022	  Ned PriceJune 14, 2022Washington, DC 

previous page123456…10next page

Back to Top
§ 1005.4 Authority of the ALJ. ( a ) The ALJ will conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid delay, maintain order and assure that a record of the proceeding is made.
( b ) The ALJ has the authority to— ( 1 ) Set and change the date, time and place of the hearing upon reasonable notice to the parties;
( 2 ) Continue or recess the hearing in whole or in part for a reasonable period of time;
( 3 ) Hold conferences to identify or simplify the issues, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding;
( 4 ) Administer oaths and affirmations;
( 5 ) Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses at hearings and the production of documents at or in relation to hearings;
( 6 ) Rule on motions and other procedural matters;
( 7 ) Regulate the scope and timing of documentary discovery as permitted by this part;
( 8 ) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of representatives, parties, and witnesses;
( 9 ) Examine witnesses;
( 10 ) Receive, rule on, exclude or limit evidence;
( 11 ) Upon motion of a party, take official notice of facts;
( 12 ) Upon motion of a party, decide cases, in whole or in part, by summary judgment where there is no disputed issue of material fact; and
( 13 ) Conduct any conference, argument or hearing in person or, upon agreement of the parties, by telephone.
( c ) The ALJ does not have the authority to— ( 1 ) Find invalid or refuse to follow Federal statutes or regulations or secretarial delegations of authority;
( 2 ) Enter an order in the nature of a directed verdict;
( 3 ) Compel settlement negotiations;
( 4 ) Enjoin any act of the Secretary;
( 5 ) Review the exercise of discretion by the OIG to exclude an individual or entity under section 1128(b) of the Act or under part 1003 of this chapter, or determine the scope or effect of the exclusion;
( 6 ) Set a period of exclusion at zero, or reduce a period of exclusion to zero, in any case in which the ALJ finds that an individual or entity committed an act described in section 1128(b) of the Act or under part 1003 of this chapter; or
( 7 ) Review the exercise of discretion by the OIG to impose a CMP, assessment or exclusion under part 1003 of this chapter.
[57 FR 3350, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 5618, Jan. 22, 1993; 81 FR 88365, Dec. 7, 2016]
|  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 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | BY /s/ Frank West                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Frank West               |
|   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |  Date:  November 8, 2010   |

----
HomeBulgaria

# Bulgaria

110 items

        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (08-325) – Agreement to Facilitate the Provision of Assistance for Nuclear Nonproliferation Purposes	  March 25, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (07-116.1) – Additional Protocol Amending Investment Treaty	  January 16, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (06-612) – Agreement on Defense Cooperation	  June 12, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (04-0701) – Agreement Concerning the Bulgarian-American Commission for Educational Exchange	  July 1, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (13126) – Agreement Regarding Mutual Assistance Between Customs Administrations	  April 1, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Multilateral (04-227) – Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession on Bulgaria	  February 27, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (01-1116) – Defense Cooperation Agreement	  November 16, 2001 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (12979) – Agreement Concerning Economic, Technical and Related Assistance	  February 1, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (12984) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  September 8, 1998 
        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (94-602) – Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment	  June 2, 1994 

previous page1…91011

Back to Top
No. 00-5916.

#### Gevedon *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, K.J. BRUBAKER, K.M. MCDONALD

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EDWARD E. MARTIN

MACHINIST'S MATE FIRST CLASS (E-6), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400323

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 15 May 2014.

Military Judge: Capt Robert B. Blazewick, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Southeast, 

Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Fl.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR N.O. Evans, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Capt David A. Peters, USMC.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

21 May 2015

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### Eli Edward JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-1307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 26, 1975.

Horace A. Knowlton, III, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on November 5, 1974, from an order of the trial court which, although signed November 1, 1974, was not filed until November 26, 1974. Since the notice was filed untimely, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

It is, therefore, ordered that this appeal be and it is hereby dismissed.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
July 27, 2015

Mr. Travis Shields

821 3rd Street #306

Santa Monica, CA 90403

Dear Mr. Shields:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 30, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2596), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# Kosovo

139 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 8, 2023	  Ned PriceMarch 8, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Welcoming Progress on the Path to Normalization between Kosovo and Serbia	  Ned PriceFebruary 28, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Special Online Briefing with Gabriel Escobar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs	  Gabriel EscobarFebruary 28, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: Kosovo	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Kosovo National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 17, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 25, 2023	  Ned PriceJanuary 25, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Counselor Chollet’s Travel to the United Arab Emirates, North Macedonia, Kosovo, and Serbia 	  January 7, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Escalating Tensions in the North of Kosovo	  December 28, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Verdict in the Trial of Salih Mustafa at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers	  Ned PriceDecember 16, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Counselor Chollet’s Travel to Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, and Belgium	  December 8, 2022 

previous page1…45678…14next page

Back to Top
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 7, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50260 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RIGOBERTO LAIJA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1462-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rigoberto Laija-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, i.e. , more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, and making a false statement. Laija-Garcia argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after the stop of his car by a Border Patrol agent. Laija-Garcia was stopped at approximately 1:00 a.m. by an experienced Border Patrol agent who observed him driving slowlyNo. 04-50260 -2- near the border in an area frequented by drug traffickers on a dead-end road typically used only by ranchers during daylight hours. The agent testified that, when he shone a flashlight on Laija-Garcia, Laija-Garcia’s eyes opened wide, he turned his body away, and he accelerated past the agent towards the dead end. Additionally, the agent was aware that, on at least two recent occasions, drug smugglers had successfully imported drugs through the same area, and the stop occurred soon after a sensor alarm had sounded and near four large bundles of marijuana. Thus, the totality of the circumstances indicates that the Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity was afoot. See United States v. Neufeld-Neufeld , 338 F.3d 374, 378-80 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Albania

99 items

        -    Report  		Albania	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Albania	   
        -    Report  		Albania	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Albania	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Albania	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Albania	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Albania	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Albania	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Albania	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Albania	  March 3, 2017 

previous page1…78910next page

Back to Top
Order entered March 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00338
- CV FSC ENTERPRISES, LLC , Appellant
V. DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL , Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX
- 11
- 40912 

### O RDER Before the Court is the March 13, 2013 motion of Heidi Darst, Official Court Reporter for the Civil District Tax Court of Dallas County, Texas, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the motio n. The reporter’s record shall be filed on or before March 28, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
# North Korea

439 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 20, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 20, 2024Washington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		DPRK:  Ten Years After the UN Commission of Inquiry Final Report	  Matthew MillerFebruary 17, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 13, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 13, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Special Envoy on North Korean Human Rights Issues Julie Turner’s Travel to Japan and the Republic of Korea	  February 9, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 8, 2024	  Vedant PatelFebruary 8, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 5, 2024	  Vedant PatelFebruary 5, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 31, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 31, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 24, 2024	  Vedant PatelJanuary 24, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at the Screening of Beyond Utopia	  Uzra ZeyaJanuary 19, 2024Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 17, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 17, 2024Washington, D.C. 

previous page1…34567…44next page

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James L. WILLIAMS v. Honorable Oliver P. SCHULINGKAMP, Judge, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court.

No. 67550.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re James L. Williams, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. Nos. 246-514 and 244-954.

Denied. Moot.