alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Jenkins, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 996]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered April 21, 1994, convicting him of rape in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction arises out of an incident in which he engaged in a sexual act with the complainant, a mentally-retarded female who was then 19 years old. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was legally sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that the complainant was "mentally defective” within the meaning of Penal Law § 130.00 (5), and that therefore she could not consent to the sexual act *(see, People v Easley,*42 NY2d 50, 54). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
UNMANNED AERlAL SOLUTlONS, INC. 

Blue-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc. 

Attn: Clint P. Stevens 

1965 South Beech St. 

Wichita, KS 67207 

316-305-5498 

clint. stevens@bluechipuas. com 

May 12, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request to amend and allow for Blue-Chip UAS, Inc. the ability to utilize 

additional sUAS platforms under the same direction as provided within exemption 

#11172, docket# FAA-2014-0787-0009, approved February 10,2015. 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Blue-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc. (Blue-Chip UAS) was issued an exemption under 

Section 333 of the "FAA Modernization and Reform act of 20 12" (the "Reform Act") numbered 11172 

(the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting UAS operations within the oil and gas, agriculture, 

wildlife and aerial photography industries. Blue-Chip UAS, herby requests an amendment to the 

Exemption to allow an additional type of "Multi-Rotor Wing" unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to be 

operated in full compliance with the conditions set forth within the Exemption. 

Blue-Chip UAS, requests permission to operate the following UAS based on their type, size, 

weight, and speed under the same terms and conditions contained within the Exemption and provided by 

the parameters set forth in regards to capabilities and limitations identified within the Flight Operations 

Manual and Maintenance Manual attached as provided. 
Model 

Altus X-4 

Altus X-8 

~ Size 

Multi-Rotor 4.5ft Span 

Multi-Rotor 4ft Span 

Weight 

28lbs 

49lbs 

Speed 

<27mph 

<27mph 

Blue-Chip UAS, respectfully requests the same finding from the FAA as provided to Aerial Mob, 

LLC as to their amended exemption numbered ll066A, docket ID FAA-2014-0353, dated February 2, 

2015. As indicated, the FAA found the amendment request was not precedent setting, that good cause 

exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register and that any delay in acting on 

the petition would be detrimental to the organization. 

Thank you for your time in regards to this petition and please direct any correspondence to Mr. 

Clint Stevens. 

Clint P. Stevens 

Chief Operations Officer & Co-Founder 

Blue-Chip UAS, Inc. 

316-305-5498 

clint. stevens@bluechipuas.com 

cc: 

Robert Pappas 

KieraJones 

John Barbagallo
The reference “Fluidized Bed Combustion. Sime on Oka, CRC Press, September 2003, pp. 527-528,” is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=_GnPuRvcCokC&p rintsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.2


                    SOFTWARE SPECTRUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             COMPUTATION OF FULLY-DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Three Months Ended
                                   ---------------------------
                                      July 31,      June 30,
                                        1997         1996
                                   ------------   ------------
<S>                                <C>            <C>          
Net income (loss)                  $    541,000   $   (256,000)
                                   ============   ============

Shares as adjusted:
     Average number of shares
        outstanding                   4,332,282      4,288,084
     Incremental shares
        from outstanding stock
        options as determined
        under the treasury stock
        method, using the higher
        of ending or average
        market price                     13,643            --*
                                   ------------   ------------

Shares as adjusted                    4,345,925      4,288,084
                                   ============   ============

Fully-diluted earnings (loss)
   per share                       $       0.12   $      (0.06)
                                   ============   ============
</TABLE>


     *    No incremental shares from outstanding stock options are included as
          they would be anti-dilutive.
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the  "Partnership") for the period ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
August 12, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron GUIZAR-NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10378.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Aaron -Guizar-Najera raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000875272
<NAME> DATRONIC EQUIPMENT INCOME FUND XX, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,604,555
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,102,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,039,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,102,695
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,725
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (372,205)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (218,736)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: Helen Laviolette

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:35 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Helen Laviolette
Annandale, Virginia
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PETE HINSKEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALYSSA ZACH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5107RBL

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:06-cv-05107-RBL Document 6 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05107-RBL Document 6 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HARRY FOX,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. RICHARDS,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5063RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [Dkt.

#27].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

Under Local Rule 7, Motions for Reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied absent

a showing of manifest error, or a new factual or legal basis which could not have been raised earlier. Local

Rule 7(h). This standard has not been met in this case, and the Court will not reconsider its prior ruling

[Dkt. #23]. 

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #27] is DENIED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 7th day of February, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 29 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69670-69671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--OpenJS Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 27, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), OpenJS Foundation has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Sovereign Tech 
Fund, SPRIND GmbH, German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate 
Action, Leipzig, GERMANY, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and OpenJS Foundation intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 17, 2015, OpenJS Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 10, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 69671]]

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 
38537).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22245 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
No. 60237.

protest 275564-K (New York).

#### Castelcliff, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of opaque white glass stones of different sizes and shapes, faceted, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59105, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOTREX
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 28, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                          38,267
<SECURITIES>                                     6,986
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,767
<INVENTORY>                                     47,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,847
<PP&E>                                          64,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   319,535
<SALES>                                        205,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,835
<CGS>                                          133,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,236
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,236
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit** ___________________________ No. 15-3333 ___________________________ Brock Meeler lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. LVNV Funding, LLC; Hosto & Buchan, PLLC; Brien Saputo, Individually lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: July 7, 2016 Filed: July 15, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Brock Meeler appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the 1 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.dismissal was proper, for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeH & Q Properties, Inc. v. Doll , 793 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (court reviews de novo district court’s grant of motion to dismiss). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-