alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3013 JAIME ROSADO,

Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

DA0432890528-P-1. ON MOTION Before MAYER, SCHALL, and MOORE, 

### Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 

### ORDER Jaime Rosado submits a Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) notification form, moves to reinstate his petition for review, and requests a status update on his case. Rosado's petition was dismissed on November 10, 2008 because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination. On January 12, 2009, Rosado submitted a USERRA notification form claiming that his case before the Merit Systems Protection Board involved USERRA claims and thus was exempt from paying the filing fee. On January 21, 2009, Rosado submitted the Rule 15(c) form and filed a motion seeking reinstatement of his case.In his motion to reinstate, Rosado requests that the court proceed with his case

only if his case "qualiffies] under the USERRA" for a waiver of the filing fee. Rosado states that he does not want to pay the docketing fee and that if his case does not meet these requirements, it can be dismissed. The court notes that the Board decision under review does not indicate that Rosado raised any USERRA claims. Thus, because Rosado does not qualify for a waiver of the filing fee pursuant to USERRA and has not paid the filing fee, the motion to reinstate is denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion to reinstate is denied. Each side shall bear its own costs.FOR THE COURT 

# APR 3 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Jan Horbaly Clerk 

## Rua U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc: Jaime Rosado Robert C. Bigler, Esq. s17 APR 0 3 2009 Mu iiükistiLY CLERK Date

2009-3013 2
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5240

For the relief of Jose J. Aceves.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Mr. TORRES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Jose J. Aceves.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Jose

6 J. Aceves of the District of Columbia, the sum of

7 $2,000,000. The payment shall be in full satisfaction of

8 all claims Jose J. Aceves may have against the United

9 States arising out of unfounded and unsupported

10 targeting, harassment, allegations, and criminal actions by

11 the Federal Bureau of Investigation since July 1987.
2

•HR 5240 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

2 It shall be unlawful for an amount that exceeds 10

3 percent of the sum described in section 1 to be paid to

4 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren5 dered in connection with the benefits provided by this Act.

6 Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of an

7 infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount

8 provided in title 18, United States Code.

Æ
#### § 73.4154 Network/AM, FM station affiliation agreements.

See Report, Statement of Policy, and Order, Docket 20721, FCC 77-206, adopted March 10, 1977. 63 FCC 2d 674.

[47 FR 28388, June 30, 1982]
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14 or 15d-14 OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHAGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zap.Com Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Leonard DiSalvoLeonard DiSalvoVice President  Finance and CFO 15
#### § 27.92 Private structures.

No person shall without proper authority construct, install, occupy, or maintain any building, log boom, pier, dock, fence, wall, pile, anchorage, or other structure or obstruction in any national wildlife refuge.
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 Quarterly Report of Jupitermedia Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan M.
Meckler, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Alan M. Meckler
--------------------------
Alan M. Meckler
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2004


THIS CERTIFICATION IS MADE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, SUBJECT
TO THE KNOWLEDGE STANDARD THEREIN, AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.
NO. 07-05-0466-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JULY 20, 2006

______________________________

KENNETH M. ROMERO, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2005-494062; HONORABLE DRUE FARMER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kenneth M. Romero has given notice of appeal from a conviction and

sentence for Driving While Intoxicated, 2nd. The appellate court clerk received and filed the

trial court clerk’s record on March 15, 2006, and received and filed the trial court reporter’s

record on May 19, 2006. 

By letter dated June 27, 2006, the appellate clerk reminded counsel for appellant

that appellant’s brief was due on June 19, 2006, and that neither the brief nor a motion for
2

a further extension of time had been received. Counsel for appellant was further advised

by such letter that if no response to the letter was received by July 7, 2006, the appeal

would be abated to the trial court for hearing pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure

38.8(b). No response to this court’s clerk’s June 27 letter has been received.

Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the trial court. TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). Upon remand, the judge of the trial court is directed to immediately

cause notice to be given of and to conduct a hearing to determine: 

(1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; 

(2) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, then whether appellant

is indigent, and if not indigent, whether counsel for appellant has

abandoned the appeal; 

(3) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant’s

present counsel should be replaced; and

(4) what orders, if any, should be entered to assure the filing of

appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal

if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or, if appellant

desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal will be

diligently pursued.

If the trial court determines that appellant is indigent and that the present attorney for

appellant should be replaced, the court shall cause the clerk of this court to be furnished the

name, address, and State Bar of Texas identification number of the newly-appointed

attorney. 

In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings of

fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.

The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental reporter’s
3

record. Those supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this court no later than

August 21, 2006.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
- 
      - ** Home
      - ** About Us
      - ** Archives
      - ** Events
      - ** Publications

### Contact Us

To provide feedback on the Community Policing Dispatch, e-mail the editorial board at CPDispatch@usdoj.gov.

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, publications, and resources, contact the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770 or AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov

**U.S. Department of Justice**        Office of Community Oriented Policing Services            145 N Street, N.E.       Washington, DC 20530      www.cops.usdoj.gov×        Menu         - Home
- About Us
- Archives
- Events
- Publications
- Contact Us
** **
December 2018 | Volume 11 | Issue 12

The COPS Office is pleased to introduce a new series of  short videos intended to keep viewers informed about innovative developments  and critical issues in law enforcement. Inspired by the approach used for TED  Talks,  the new series, *What’s  New in Blue,*will feature short and informative discussions about  ideas worth spreading  throughout American policing. This  recurring series of videos is one of several COPS Office platforms that make  knowledge accessible to state and local law enforcement   and builds on the success of the COPS Office’s technical  assistance publications, *The  Beat* podcast series, and the *Community Policing Dispatch*e-newsletter.

The first episode of *What’s New in Blue*features Dr. Jon Sheinberg, a Board  Certified Cardiologist and sworn officer from Texas who discusses the prevalence  of coronary disease in law enforcement and offers suggested measures for  officers to avoid heart attacks. Watch this edition of *What’s  New in Blue*; future editions can all be accessed by  selecting the *What’s New in Blue* icon  on the COPS  Office website.

Tweet
**Subscribe to Email Updates**
To sign up for monthly updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please enter your email address in the Subscribe box.
Email
The Community Policing Dispatch is the e-newsletter of the COPS Office. 

The Community Policing Dispatch is the e-newsletter of the COPS Office. 

**Explore**
- Home
- About Us
- Archives
- Events
- Publications
- Contact Us
**Connect With Us**
Want to stay connected with the COPS office?             Follow us on social media!
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
 FOIA 

 No FEAR Act 

 Open Government 

 Plain Writing 

 USA.gov 

 Legal Policies and Disclaimers 

 Language Access Plan 

 DOJ Privacy Policy
Docket No. FAA- 2010 - JOL/ 0

Regulatory Evaluation

~;,ectorate Ident;fier: J.O/DADJI! 0- J.D 7-A D

Estimated Costs: I

Costs per Product (e.g., air1raft, engine,

Action

propeller, appliance)

(e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include cost (labor + U.S. for U.S. Fleet

access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered

and close-up) our) Products

EICAS test 1.0 . ,; 'j' I $0 , -il :"1 425 $ 0

.', ',';) I

,

, $ 0

1111\) I

, , $ 0

,

I I,ll I

, $ 0

I

Th~ known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: !G8 Is Not

In

Table

I Costs covered under warranty $0

I

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table ,

that was assumed or might not be obvious. ThL~field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be consIdered a "s;gn;ficant regf"tory act;on"? ~

*ExplanatIon I

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? _;

YEs'D NOISI

YEs'D NOISI

"Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act: I

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.~·

YESD NOISI

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: I

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

I ~

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~,

YES'D NOISI

*Explanation:
Reversed and Remanded in Part ; Affirmed in Part and Memorandum Opinion filed

January 19 , 20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 473

- CV

____________ JANIS KAY GILLEY , Appellant

V.

RICHARD A. GILLEY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 387th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10

- DCV

- 180499



### MEM O RANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 15, 2011

. On January 6, 2012 , the parties filed a joint motion to enforce a settlement agreement

. See Tex. R. App

. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, we reverse the division of property and remand only that portion of the judgment to the trial court for entry of a modified decree in accordance with the terms2

of the parties’ agreement. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment of April 15, 2011 is
affirm ed

.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Jamison.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

COPS Community Policing Development Grants (CPD) 

State, Agency, and Project Name 

California 

Hawthorne Police Department 

Coffee with a Cop National Expansion Project 

Estimated Award Amount 

$399,989 

The Working Group 

Not In Our Town: Working Together for Safe, Inclusive 

Communities 

$400,000 

Colorado 

National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children 

Identify, Protect, and Serve Drug Endangered Children through 

Community Oriented Policing 

$400,000 

Connecticut 

New Haven, University of 

Enhancing Community Policing Through Community Mediation $89,477 

Yale University 

Social Network Analysis $299,750 

District of Columbia 

American University 

Policing Protest: The Role of Community Policing in the Occupy 

Movement 

$399,987 

Strategic Applications International 

Below Ten: Mobilizing Border Cities to Address Guns, Drugs 

and Human Trafficking 

$300,000 

Florida 

Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Inc. 

Community Policing Best Practices in a New Economy $249,999 

St. Petersburg College 

Puerto Rico Community Policing Project $399,998 

Resources to Address Officer Suicide $199,999 

August 2, 2012 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

COPS Community Policing Development Grants (CPD) 

State, Agency, and Project Name 

The University of South Florida 

Advancing Community Policing through Fair and Impartial 

Policing: National Training and Technical Assistance 

Illinois 

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 

Procedural Justice for Officers: Enhancing Public Trust Project 

Louisiana 

Northwestern State University 

Police Operations – Using Social Media in Criminal 

Investigations 

Michigan 

Michigan State University 

Research Institute on Police Consolidation and Shared Services 

New Mexico 

Las Cruces Police Department 

Valley View Elementary Community Policing Study 

New York 

Fund for the City of New York 

Best Practices from the Police-Youth Dialogue Project 

Police-led Diversion Programs: National Prevalence and Scope 

North Carolina 

Greensboro, City of 

Stratified Model of Problem Solving, Analysis, and Accountability 

Utah 

Salt Lake, City of 

Homeless Outreach Services Program 

Estimated Award Amount 

$399,827 

$349,959 

$247,220 

$399,998 

$35,792 

$116,648 

$323,419 

$49,648 

$47,240 

August 2, 2012 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

COPS Community Policing Development Grants (CPD) 

State, Agency, and Project Name 

Virginia 

International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Toolkit for Law 

Enforcement 

Estimated Award Amount 

$299,826 

Tribal Community Policing Promising Practices $299,999 

Virginia Community Policing Institute 

Community Policing Training and Technical Assistance Program 

(CP-TTAP) 

Ethical Decision Making: Policing with Principled Insight 

$299,945 

$499,976 

Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Police Department 

Officer Resiliency to Stress and Reducing Cardiovascular 

Disease Risks 

$50,000 

August 2, 2012
<page>
					  EXHIBIT 32.02




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Portfolio
Strategy Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee
Horwitz, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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:
(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 Partnership.






By:	  /s/	Lee Horwitz

Name:		Lee Horwitz
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 23, 2007
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-968

[October 5, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-14566 CF10A.

Anthony Williams, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Editorial Note on Part 300
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

§ 300.43 Observers. ( a ) The operator and each member of the crew of a vessel shall allow and assist any person identified as an observer under the Treaty by the Pacific Island Parties: ( 1 ) To board the vessel for scientific, compliance, monitoring and other functions at the point and time notified by the Pacific Island Parties to the Secretary.
( 2 ) Without interfering unduly with the lawful operation of the vessel, to have full access to and use of facilities and equipment on board the vessel that the observer may determine are necessary to carry out observer duties; have full access to the bridge, fish on board, and areas that may be used to hold, process, weigh and store fish; remove samples; have full access to vessel's records, including its log and documentation for the purpose of inspection and copying; have reasonable access to navigation equipment, charts, and radios, and gather any other information relating to fisheries in the Licensing Area.
( 3 ) To disembark at the point and time notified by the Pacific Island Parties to the Secretary.
( 4 ) To carry out observer duties safely.
( b ) The operator shall provide the observer, while on board the vessel, at no expense to the Pacific Island Parties, with food, accommodation and medical facilities of reasonable standard as may be acceptable to the Pacific Island Party whose representative is serving as the observer.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5268

To authorize the exchange of National Park Service land in the Fire Island

National Seashore in the State of New York for land in the Village

of Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1994

Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize the exchange of National Park Service land

in the Fire Island National Seashore in the State of

New York for land in the Village of Patchogue, Suffolk

County, New York.

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 EXCHANGE.

4 The Secretary of the Interior may exchange all right,

5 title, and interest of the United States in and to certain

6 National Park Service lands in the Fire Island National

7 Seashore in the State of New York, described in section

8 2, for all right, title, and interest of the Village of
2

•HR 5268 IH

1 Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York, in and to certain

2 lands in the Village of Patchogue, described in section 2,

3 without further consideration, before the expiration of the

4 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment

5 of this Act.

6 SEC. 2. DESCRIPTION OF LANDS TO BE EXCHANGED.

7 (a) NATIONAL PARK LANDS.—The National Park

8 Service lands in the Fire Island National Seashore, in the

9 State of New York, referred to in section 1 are the lands

10 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Fire Island Na11 tional Seashore Land Exchange—Proposed’’, dated Octo12 ber 1994.

13 (b) VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE LANDS.—The lands in

14 the Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York, re15 ferred to in section 1 are the lands generally depicted on

16 the map entitled ‘‘Village of Patchogue Land Exchange—

17 Proposed’’, dated October 1994.

18 (c) MAPS.— The maps referred to in subsections (a)

19 and (b) shall be on file and available for inspection in the

20 Office of the Director of the National Park Service.

21 SEC. 3. LANDS ACQUIRED BY SECRETARY.

22 The lands in the Village of Patchogue that are ac23 quired by the Secretary of the Interior under section 1
3

•HR 5268 IH

1 shall be added to and administered as part of the Fire

2 Island National Seashore.

Æ
§ 18.146 How the Service will evaluate a request for an LOA. ( a ) The Service will evaluate each request for an LOA to determine if the proposed activity is consistent with the analysis and findings made for the regulations in this subpart. Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may issue the LOA, add further conditions, or deny the LOA.
( b ) Once issued, the Service may withdraw or suspend an LOA if the project activity is modified in a way that undermines the results of the previous evaluation, if the conditions of the regulations in this subpart are not being substantially complied with, or if the taking allowed is or may be having more than a negligible impact on the affected stock of sea otters or an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of sea otters for subsistence uses.
( c ) The Service will make decisions concerning withdrawals of an LOA, either on an individual or class basis, only after notice and opportunity for public comment in accordance with § 18.27(f)(5). The requirement for notice and public comment will not apply should we determine that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of sea otters.
099P15-2

#### State v. Jonathan Lavon Friend

Defs Pro *Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied