alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 27, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY D. DEWILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-1410 (D.C. Nos. 05-cv-00893-REB and 99-cr-00120-REB) (D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before TACHA , TYMKOVICH , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges. Gary D. DeWilliams was found guilty of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, this court vacated his conviction and remanded for a new trial because his attorney had stipulated to an element of the crime without Mr. DeWilliams’s
consent. United States v. DeWilliams , 2001 WL 1580900 (10th Cir. 2001). Following remand, Mr. DeWilliams was again found guilty, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 293 months. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. United States v. DeWilliams , 2004 WL 33632 (10th Cir.- 2 - 2004). Mr. DeWilliams then filed the instant collateral challenge to his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In an extensively reasoned opinion, the district court denied relief and Mr. DeWilliams’s request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Mr. DeWilliams now seeks a COA from us to enable him to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. In order to secure a COA, a petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), such that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). In assessing this question, we review Mr. DeWilliams’s pro se filings with special solicitude. See Van Deelen v. Johnson , 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). Even when viewed through this lens, however, to the extent that Mr. DeWilliams seeks to challenge the district court’s disposition of his § 2255 motion, we conclude based on our review of the record, and for substantially the same reasons given by the district court in its thoughtful opinion, that no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of that court’s rulings. To the extent Mr. DeWilliams seeks to raise new issues on appeal that were not presented to the district court, we decline to consider them. See Dockins v. Hines , 374 F.3d 935, 940 (10th Cir. 2004) (court of appeals may decline to consider novel argument in application for COA not presented first to the district court).- 3 - Mr. DeWilliams’s request for COA is therefore denied and this appeal is dismissed. We further deny his application to proceed in forma pauperis

.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:22-cv-23342-MD Document 215-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:22-cv-23342-MD Document 215-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:22-cv-23342-MD Document 215-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:22-cv-23342-MD Document 215-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 4 of 4
#### § 3055.90 Reporting of customer satisfaction.

For each market dominant product specified in the Mail Classification Schedule in part 3040, appendix A to subpart A of part 3040 of this chapter, the Postal Service shall file a report as part of the section 3652 report, unless a more frequent filing is specifically indicated, addressing customer satisfaction achievements for the preceding fiscal year. The report shall include, at a minimum, the specific reporting requirements presented in §§ 3055.91 through 3055.92.

[85 FR 9659, Feb. 19, 2020]
#### § 101-30.001 Applicability.

The provisions of this part are applicable to all Federal agencies. However, they shall apply to the Department of Defense only when so specified within or by the subparts of this part.

[36 FR 20292, Oct. 20, 1971]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8489-BER

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8533-BER

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8534-BER

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8547-BER

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8548-BER

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8549-BER

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8550-BER

IN RE SEALED SEARCH WARRANT

___________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK OF COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD:

Please take notice that Leslie Cooper Vigen, Senior Trial Counsel at the United States

Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, hereby enters her appearance as 

counsel of record for the United States of America in the above-captioned matters.

Date: August 1, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Leslie Cooper Vigen

LESLIE COOPER VIGEN

Senior Trial Counsel (D.C. Bar No. 1019782)

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

1100 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Tel.: (202) 305-0727

Email: Leslie.Vigen@usdoj.gov

Counsel for United States

Case 9:22-mj-08489-BER Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2023 Page 1 of 1
Argued and submitted March 30,

reversed and remanded for new trial June 7, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*GILBERT VELASCO, *Appellant.*

(90CR-0575; CA A81749)

895 P2d 817

Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for new trial. *State v. Maxfield,*133 Or App 371, 891 P2d 1342, *mod*134 Or App 542, 896 P2d 581 (1995).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Scientific assessment of ozone depletion..**
 
2002 | 2006 | 2010 | 2014
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.2: SCI 2/2/
Item Number:0250-E-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001062696
 
July 2, 2018
Exhibit 32.2



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 Sento Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian Maloy, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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





|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/ Brian  Maloy        | 
|Brian  Maloy           
|Chief Financial Officer
|February 20, 2007      



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 963.10 Continuances and extensions.

Continuances and extensions will be granted by the presiding officer for good cause shown.
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



         In connection with the Annual Report of Harvest Valley  Ventures,  Inc.
on Form  10-KSB for the period  ending  September  30,  2002,  as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, B.
Stephen Bailey, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


/S/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 0:00-cr-06240-WPD Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2001 Page 1 of 2
Case 0:00-cr-06240-WPD Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2001 Page 2 of 2
#### § 958.14 Ex parte communications.

Communications between a Presiding Officer and a party shall not be made on any matter in issue unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This prohibition does not apply to procedural matters. A memorandum of any communication between the Presiding Officer and a party shall be transmitted by the Presiding Officer to all parties.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05265

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 05265\05265_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05265\05265_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05265\05265_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05265\05265_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05265\05265_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05265\Certification Statement Plant ID 05265.pdf Plant certification statement

x 05265\Follow-up\05265 Follow-up Steam Electric Questionnaire .docx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 05265\Follow-up\Letter.docx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

05265\Supplemental Documents\05265_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05265\Supplemental Documents\05265_Water Balance Diagram WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05265\Supplemental Documents\WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05265\05265_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05265\05265_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.11


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director
or officer, or both, as the case may be, of United Surgical Partners
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003,
and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and
each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact or its substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.




                                                /s/ John C. Garrett, M.D.
                                                -------------------------------
                                                John C. Garrett, M.D.


                                                February 18, 2004
1

NO. 12-10-00043-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID GEORGE BAUGH, § APPEAL FROM THE 2ND

APPELLANT

V.

ISAACS WRECKER SERVICE, LLC, § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

KEITH ISAACS, SAMMIE ISAACS,

TRAVIS CEARLEY, DANIEL

FRANKLIN, JASON PRICE,

REECE DANIEL AND JOHN PAGE,

APPELLEES § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, David George Baugh, attempts to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of his suit 

after granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by Appellees, Isaacs Wrecker Service, LLC, Keith 

Isaacs, Sammie Isaacs, Travis Cearley, Daniel Franklin, Jason Price, Reece Daniel, and John 

Page. On February 16, 2010, this court notified Baugh that the information received in this 

appeal does not include a final judgment or other appealable order. Therefore, the record does 

not show that this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Baugh was further notified that his appeal 

would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before

February 26, 2010 to show the jurisdiction of this court. 

In response to this court’s February 16, 2010 notice, Baugh filed a motion to extend the 

time for providing a final judgment or other appealable order. The motion was granted, and the 

time was extended to April 26, 2010. On April 20, 2010, Baugh filed a second motion to extend 

the time for providing the requisite final judgment or other appealable order. That motion was 

granted, and the time was extended to May 5, 2010. The May 5 deadline has now passed, and 
2

we have not received a final judgment or other appealable order in this appeal. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3.

By per curiam opinion May 19, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### § 102-118.185 When buying freight transportation, must my agency reference the applicable contract or tender on the bill of lading (including a GBL)?

Yes, your agency must reference the applicable contract or tender when buying transportation on a bill of lading (including GBLs). However, the referenced information on a GBL or bill of lading does not limit an audit of charges.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Alico, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2010 (the Form 10-Q), I, Patrick W.
Murphy, Chief Financial 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) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2010  
|                       
|/S/ PATRICK W. MURPHY  
|Patrick W. Murphy      
|Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:22-cr-20356-RNS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:22-cr-20356-RNS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 2 of 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20356-RNS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 3 of 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20356-RNS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 4 of 4
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAVONTA RYANS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1915

[May 10, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502016CF004146AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jessica A. De Vera, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. 

Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Lithostratigraphy,microlithofacies, and conodont biostratigraphy and biofacies of the WahooLimestone (Carboniferous), eastern Sadlerochit Mountains, northeast BrooksRange, Alaska**
 
Report | Plate Six | Tables: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.16:1568
Item Number:0624 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001060665
 
June 15, 2018
EXHIBIT I

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 31-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2023 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

US FREEDOM FLYERS, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATLAS AIR, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. 22-cv-23519-KMM-LFL

DECLARATION OF MICHELLE HOGAN IN SUPPORT OF ATLAS AIR, INC., JOHN 

W. DIETRICH, PATRICIA GOODWIN-PETERS, & JEFFREY CARLSON’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

I, Michelle Hogan, declare: 

1. I am over eighteen years of age and am competent to testify to the matters stated in 

this declaration. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge unless stated 

to be upon information and belief. 

2. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida and I am an Associate 

with the law firm Jones Day. I have entered an appearance in this case, see Not. Appearance [ECF 

No. 21], and I am one of the attorneys representing Defendants Atlas Air, Inc., John W. Dietrich, 

Patricia Goodwin-Peters, & Jeffrey Carlson (collectively, “Atlas Air Defendants”) in the abovecaptioned matter. I make this Declaration in Support of the Atlas Air Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss [ECF No. 31]. 

3. The document attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Joshua 

Roberts’ Charge of Discrimination, dated November 2, 2022. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 31-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2023 Page 2 of 3
4. The document attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Joshua 

Roberts’ Dismissal & Notice of Rights from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

issued on January 3, 2023. 

5. The document attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the 

Collective Bargaining Agreement between Atlas Air, Inc. and International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters Airline Division, as representatives of the Flight Deck Crew Members in the service of 

Atlas Air, Inc., effective as of September 10, 2021. 

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true 

and correct. 

Executed this 6th day of February, 2023 

_/s/ Michelle Hogan 

Michelle Hogan

Florida Bar No. 1010992 

mhogan@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 714-9700 

Facsimile: (305) 714-9799 

Attorney for Atlas Air Defendants

 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 31-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2023 Page 3 of 3
§ 102-118.320 What action should my agency take if the agency's transportation prepayment audit program changes? ( a ) If your agency's transportation prepayment audit program changes in any way to include changes in prepayment auditors, your agency must submit the CFO-approved revised transportation prepayment audit program to GSA Transportation Audits Division via email at *Audit.Policy@gsa.gov ,* Subject line: Agency PPA-Revised.
( b ) If GSA determines the agency's approved plan is insufficient, GSA will contact the agency CFO to inform of the prepayment audit program deficiencies and request corrective action and resubmission to GSA Transportation Audits Division.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MIRIAM ANI,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF PARKLAND and PINE TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT,

Appellees.

No. 4D14-3873

[June 1, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Dale Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-11-009405 (08).

Andrew J. Rader of Cutler Rader, PL, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr., and George P. Roberts, Jr. of Roberts Reynolds 

Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee, City of Parkland.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Feldman v. Kritch, 824 So. 2d 274, 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2002); Ali R. Ghahramani, M.D., P.A. v. Pablo A. Guzman, M.D., P.A., 768 

So. 2d 535, 537-38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

GROSS, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 83.02 Responsibility (Rule 2). ( a ) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
( b ) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.