alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

A ppellee. §

§ § No. 23, 2023 § § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 91009844DI § § Submitted: February 2, 2023 Decided: February 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that: (1) On January 23, 2023, the appellant, Christopher Desmond, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated January 10, 2023, which denied

Desmond’s “Motion for the Court to Amend the Unauthorized and Misinformation Enclosed in the Presentence Report.” Desmond also filed an incomplete and unsigned motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis

. (2) Desmond has filed numerous writs and motions for postconviction and other relief over the years, including at least sixteen motions for postconviction2 relief. 1 Because of Desmond’s repetitive filing of frivolous claims, in 2014 this Court directed the Clerk “to refuse any filing from Desmond unless the filing is accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis , with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e), and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by this Court.” 2 (3) Following the receipt of the current notice of appeal, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice identifying the 2014 order regarding future filings and directing Desmond to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed because he had failed to pay the required filing fee or to file a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the certifications that he is required to make under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e). The notice also stated that “[t]o the extent that you submit a completed motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis in response to this notice to show cause, you must also demonstrate that the issues that you seek to raise have never been raised or disposed of before and are not foreclosed by controlling law.” (4) In response to the notice to show cause, Desmond has not paid the filing fee or provided a completed motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis with the required certifications. Instead, he asserts that the Superior Court erred by denying his motion seeking amendment of his presentence report, which was

1 See, e.g. , Desmond v. State , 2022 WL 16570935 (Del. Oct. 31, 2022) (affirming denial of sixteenth motion for postconviction relief). 2 Desmond v. State , No. 567, 2014, Docket Entry No. 22 (Del. Feb. 11, 2015).3 completed thirty years ago. His response does not address the deficiencies in his incomplete, unsigned motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis . The appeal

is therefore dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
**Part 1, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard External Reports**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2018 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by OMB and Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
18.03 Resolve a Duplicate Check
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Darrel Lee Smith,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking redress

for violation of his federal civil rights; plaintiff claims

defendant King was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety

when King released confidential information about plaintiff’s

enemies. Plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Motion to

Compel Discovery.” Defendants filed no opposition.

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to inspect documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 73 Filed 01/06/06 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

2

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

A party who has requested admissions may move to determine

the sufficiency of the answers or objections and unless the court

determines an objection is justified, it shall order an answer be

served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). 

Plaintiff’s motion states:

Now comes plaintiff Darrel Lee Smith on June 7, 2005

filing with a proof of service on Defendant King A

[sic] motion to compel discovery of all facts relating

to his investigation in this case base [sic] on

Defendant’s [sic] King investigation was not and is not

approved in writing by the warden of the institution. 

Penal Code 2932.sec.(iii), (iv). However Smith request

[sic] Mark Baker [sic] medical record dated March 10,

2003; and his RVR 115 relating to this issue are matter

[sic] “Base on “B” [sic] Facility was on lockdown and

Mark Baker was Smith Celly [sic].

Plaintiff has made no showing he sought this information

through any of the available discovery methods. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33, 34, 36. 

I therefore deny plaintiff’s June 9, 2005, request. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b), 36(a).

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 73 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2023 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"September 2023
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00152-CR 

 

ELLIOT VENTURA, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

 Carson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 7100, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

November 21, 2022 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Elliot Ventura, appeals his conviction for evading arrest1 and sentence 

to thirty years’ confinement. The appellate record was originally due September 14, 2022. 

The clerk’s record has been filed but we granted the reporter an extension of time to file 

the reporter’s record due to her caseload. By letter of October 11, 2022, we admonished 

the reporter that failure to file the reporter’s record by October 24 could result in the appeal 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04.
2

being abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings without 

further notice. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed and the reporter has had 

no further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.”); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring 

appellate courts to “make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to 

preserve the parties’ rights” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand, 

the trial court shall determine the following:

1. what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter’s record;

2. why the reporter has not completed the necessary tasks;

3. what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those 

tasks; and

4. whether the reporter can complete the tasks within the time the trial court 

finds reasonable.

Should the trial court determine that the reporter will require more than thirty days 

to complete, certify, and file the reporter’s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter 

to do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by December 

21, 2022.
3

Should the reporter file the record on or before December 5, 2022, she is directed 

to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall 

not be required to take any further action.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Terminal Configuration

To view terminal configuration, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, click Manage Check Processing>Terminal Configuration>

View. 

2. The View page appears as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. View Terminal Configuration Page

Click Return Home to go OTCnet Home.

Additional Button
No. 67842.

#### Brunn & Bertheim *v.*United States,

protests 61/21122 and 61/14892 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Shoji panels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United Enterprises et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 73, C.D. 2023), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7799
JAMES STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE, Superintendent of Custody; BETTY BAIN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-320-5-CT-H) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stevenson v. McDade , No. CA-94-320-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 1995). 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
#### John DURAN; Rosemary Duran, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-70923.

Tax Ct. No. 9651-99.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

*589Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Duran and Rosemary Duran appeal pro se the tax court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute their petition for redetermination of income tax deficiencies asserted against them by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”). We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review for abuse of discretion the tax court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, *Noli v. Commissioner,*860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir.1988), and denial of a motion to vacate, *Thomas v. Lewis,*945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

The tax court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Durans’ case due to failure to prosecute because the tax court warned the Durans that if they failed to appear for trial, their petition might be dismissed. *See*Tax Ct. R. 123(b); *Noli,*860 F.2d at 1527. The tax court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Durans’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their petition because they failed to provide the tax court with any explanation for their failure to appear at the trial. *See Thomas,*945 F.2d at 1123.

The Durans’ remaining contentions lack merit and we deny their pending motions.

The CIR moves for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912. “This appeal is frivolous because the result is obvious and the arguments of error are wholly without merit.” *Gattuso v. Pecorella,*733 F.2d 709, 710 (9th Cir.*5901984) (per curiam). Accordingly, we impose a sanction of $1,000.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.25 Amendment 8 to Term Note





EXHIBIT 10.25




AMENDMENT No. 8 TO TERM NOTE




This Amendment to the Term Note (“Amendment No. 8”) is dated August 30, 2016 by and among SofTech, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation with offices at 650 Suffolk Street, Suite 415, Lowell, MA 01854 (the “Borrower”) and EssigPR, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation and Joe Daly (the “Lender”).




WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender are parties to that certain Term Note dated October 1, 2014 which was amended through an agreement dated April 2, 2015 (“Amendment”) and on July 15, 2015 (“Amendment No. 2”) and on October 16, 2015 (“Amendment No. 3”) and on November 30, 2015 (“Amendment No. 4”) and on January 8, 2016 (“Amendment No. 5”); and on April 11, 2016 (“Amendment No. 6”) and on August 11, 2016 (“Amendment No. 7”); and




WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender have agreed to increase the principal amount from $1,003,551 to $1,103,551. 




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:




1.

Principal Due. Section 1. entitled “Promise to Pay.” of the Term Note, as amended, shall be amended by changing the principal amount due under the Term Note from $1,003,551 to $1,103,551 to reflect the additional advance of $100,000.




All other terms and conditions detailed in the Term Note, as amended, shall remain unchanged.







BORROWER

LENDER

SofTech, Inc.

EssigPR, Inc.







By: /s/Joseph P. Mullaney

By: /s/Joseph P. Daly




Its: CEO

Its: CEO




Date: August 30, 2016

Date: August 30, 2016
NEW YORK, NV 

TYSONS CORNER, VA 

CHICAGO,IL 

STAMFORD. CT 

PARSIPPANY, NJ 

BRUSSELS. BELGIUM 

AFFILIATE OFFICES 

MUMBAI, INDIA 

By Hand Delivery 

Ms. Dorothy Y. Beard 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

A UMITED LiABILITY PARTNERSHIP 

3050 K STREET, N. W. 

SUITE 400 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 

(202) 342-8400 

May 24,2010 

Director, Office of Information Systems 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

M-30, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

FACSIMILE 

(202) 342-8451 

www.kelleydrye.com 

DIRECT LINE. (202) 342-8528 

EMAIL dflsher@kelleydrye com 

Re: Application of United Parcel Service Co. for Allocation of One Frequency 

(U.S.-China), Docket OST-2010-0136 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

On May 19, 2010, United Parcel Service Co. ("UPS") filed an Application for an 

Allocation of One Frequency in the above-referenced docket. UPS polled all parties upon whom 

service was required by the Department's regulations and hereby informs the Department that no 

party has any objection to UPS's Application. Accordingly, UPS requests that the Department 

grant its Application as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

&~!h- Attorney for United Parcel Service Co. 

cc: All parties (via e-mail) 

Esta Rosenberg (via e-mail)
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF HARRISON C OUNTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th day of October, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In re: The Estate of James W. Fisher, Deceased No. 06

- 14

- 00029

- CV

Trial Court No. 2011

- 16,479

- CCL

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further order that the appellants, Sheila Nikko Fisher and Carlos Gracia, III, pay all costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at th e City of Texarkana, this the 15th day of January , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families 

# AGENCY:

Office of Family Assistance, ACF, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice to Award a Grant Award. 

*C.F.D.A Number:*                     93.086.                 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that an award is being made to the National Eligibility Workers Association: Professionals Associated Through Human Services of Cavalier, North Dakota, in the amount of $100,000 to develop a best practices handbook for front line social workers. NEW:PATHS is the only national organization dedicated to improving the personal and professional well-being of eligibility professionals and they are uniquely qualified to develop a handbook of best practices. Its members implement Temporary Assistance to Needy Families regulations, network with other eligibility professionals at local, regional, and national conferences and possess exceptional insights concerning Federal programs. NEW:PATHS has the capability of consulting with a national audience and its members are in direct contact with employment agencies to move participants from welfare to work and increase the percentage of families and children living in safe environments.                               ( print page 8740)    

After the appropriate reviews, it has been determined that this unsolicited proposal qualifies for funding. 

The period of this funding will extend from October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008. 

*Contact:*                         Paul Maiers, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: 202-401-5438, E-mail:                         *paul.maiers@acf.hhs.gov*.                     

Dated: February 17, 2007. 

Sidonie Squier, 

Director, Office of Family Assistance. 

 [FR Doc. E7-3415 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3920 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,355-01

EX PARTE STEPHEN BLANE FULTNER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 14-0307X(A) IN THE 71 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM HARRISON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to thirtyfive years’ imprisonment for each count. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. 

Fultner v. State, No. 06-16-00045-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 4, 2006)(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.

Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to timely inform Applicant that his

conviction had been affirmed. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that appellate

counsel’s performance was deficient and that Applicant would have timely filed a petition for

discretionary review but for counsel’s deficient performance. 
2

Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow,

180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for

discretionary review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in cause number 06-16-00045-CR. 

Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with this Court

within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: December 18, 2019

Do not publish
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                         WARNING MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC.
                           (F/K/A FAMOUS FIXINS, INC.)
                               SEPTEMBER 30, 2003


                            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 Warning Model  Management,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michael  Rudolph,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company and Stanley  Tepper,
Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that,
to the best of the undersigned's 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/  Michael Rudolph
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Michael Rudolph
                                              Chief Executive Officer, President
                                              and Chief Accounting Officer
                                              November 18, 2003