alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Participate in Groundhog Job Shadow Day, 1999

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Participate in Groundhog Job Shadow Day, 1999 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. School to Work Opportunities Office 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  Groundhog Job Shadow Day Coalition 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  143 × 28 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ricoh Aficio 3228 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  040815481.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CARLOS ANTONIO CASTILLO

- ROJO,

AKA Carlos Castillo

- Rojo,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10173

D.C. No. 4:18

- cr

- 02600

- RM

- DTF

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Antonio Castillo

- Rojo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 30

- month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

. Pursuant to Anders v. California

,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Castillo

- Rojo ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10173

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Castillo

- Rojo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se suppl emental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 13.2**

** **

**Officer Certifications**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Adecoagro S.A., a corporation organized under the form of a *sociétéanonyme*under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’sknowledge that:

 

The annual report on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: April 27, 2017

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

i
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 American Independence Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa A. Herbert, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President 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 to 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 Company.    /s/ Teresa A. Herbert
Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
May 12, 2008   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.   1
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2503-2504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF06-2011-001]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

January 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 26, 2006 Bonneville Power 
Administration filed an errata to the Tables RDS 05, RDS 06 and COSA 06 
in the Wholesale Power Rate Development Study

[[Page 2504]]

Documentation, Volume 1, included in its 2007 Final Wholesale Power 
Rate Proposal filed on July 28, 2006, pursuant to 18 CFR Sec.  
300.10(h) of the Commission's regulations for the Federal Power 
Marketing Administrations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 25, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-666 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT L. BURGARD, Lieutenant, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 436, 37 CMR 56

No. 19,726

December 9, 1966

*Lieutenant Commander George E. Goodwin,*USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Jean E. Van Slate,*USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiAM:

Convicted upon his plea of guilty of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, and forgery, in violation of Code, supra, Article 123, 10 USC § 923, the accused was sentenced to dismissal. Intermediate appellate authorities have affirmed that punishment. We granted accused’s petition for review upon the specified issue:

> “Whether the Convening Authority’s action was improperly limited by the provisions of sec. 0120a, Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy.”

At the time of the convening authority’s action upon this record, section 0120a, Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, required that he state reasons for suspending a punitive discharge in cases involving convictions of larceny or other crimes of moral turpitude. In United States v Prince, 16 USCMA 314, 36 CMR 470, we struck down this directive as an infringement upon the convening authority’s statutory powers, ordering a new review during which suspension of the discharge might be considered, free from the unlawful strictures heretofore imposed. As this case was reviewed during the period in which section 0120a, supra, was in effect, a *437like disposition must follow. See also United States v Estrada, 16 USCMA 413, 37 CMR 33, and United States v Haron, 16 USCMA 412, 37 CMR 32.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Further post-trial proceedings are hereby ordered before the convening authority in accordance with Code, supra, Articles 61 and 64, 10 USC §§ 861, 864.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.2


                            Forward Industries, Inc.
                            1801 Green Road, Suite E
                          Pompano Beach, Florida 33064



                                                             January 30, 2001

Mr. Jerome E. Ball
20583 Links Circle
Boca Raton, Florida 33434

Dear Jerry:

         In view of the relocation of the Company's principal executive offices
to Florida, and the Company's desire to maintain an apartment for use in
connection with Company business in the New York area, this letter will confirm
our understanding that as of January 1, 2001 you shall assign to the Company and
the Company will assume and agree to pay directly all of your obligations as the
tenant under that certain lease with Glenwood Management (the "Landlord") of
real property located at 300 East 56th Street, Apt. 18J, New York, New York (the
"Lease"); provided, however that the security deposit (the "Security Deposit")
paid by you under the Lease shall remain with the Landlord for the benefit of
the Company. Upon the earlier of termination of the Lease or termination of your
employment by the Company, the Company shall pay to you the Security Deposit. In
addition, you will provide a guarantee of the Company's obligation under the
Lease as requested by the Landlord. For so long as the Company is the assignee
under the Lease, the leased premises will be available for use by you on a
first-priority basis when traveling to the New York area on Company business and
to meet with the Company's accountants and legal counsel, both of whom are
located in New York.

         If the foregoing correctly reflects your understanding with respect to
the Lease, please sign in the space indicated below.

                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  FORWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                                  By:/s/______________________
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:                                    Michael M. Schiffmann
                                                        President


/s/__________________________
   Jerome E. Ball
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. walks on the moon, toward the Lunar Module

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. walks on the moon, toward the Lunar Module 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Photo no. "69-HC-681."Photograph shows astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin walking on the moon towards the Lunar Module. 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  Aldrin, BuzzProject Apollo (U.S.) 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1960-1970 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United StatesMoon 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  128 × 36 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ricoh Aficio 3228 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  050174161.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 1 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 2 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 3 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 4 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 5 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 6 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 7 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00447-EAS-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/04/13 Page: 8 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T20:22:00-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
A90A0971.

#### STARLING v. THE STATE.

(394 SE2d 581)

Decided May 7, 1990.

*Laurens C. Lee,*for appellant.

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Walter Starling, was convicted of aggravated assault, stemming from an incident where he. stabbed a man who was attempting to escort home a lady whose company Starling himself wanted to enjoy. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach its own witness, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

The stabbing incident occurred around midnight near an establishment called the Chicken Shack, where the victim had been drinking. Although the victim’s memory of the event was somewhat limited because of his intoxication at the time, he remembered a discussion between himself, Starling, whom he knew as “Buttermilk,” and the lady who shared their attention, concerning which man would walk the lady to her home. The victim remembered suggesting to Starling that he should go home to his wife, and getting stabbed when he started to walk away. He did not remember threatening Starling, but thought he might have pushed him.

The lady, in testifying at trial about the discussion regarding which gentleman was to see her home, remembered that the victim had threatened Starling and reached in his pocket before Starling stabbed him. She admitted, however, that in her written statement previously given to the police, she had not mentioned the victim’s threatening conduct. She also acknowledged that she had been dating Starling since the incident. *Held:*

1. The trial court properly allowed the State’s inquiry into the prior inconsistent statement of the witness regarding the victim’s conduct immediately prior to being stabbed by Starling. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements is now admissible as substantive evidence, not merely as impeachment material. *Gibbons v. State,*248 Ga. 858 (286 SE2d 717) (1982).

2. Considered in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence authorized a rational trier of fact to find Starling guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*

*548
      *Willis B. Sparks III, District Attorney, Wayne G. Tillis, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-333V

Filed: June 10, 2014

(Not To Be Published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DANIELLA CASTILLO and *

DANIEL RUIZ, on behalf of D.R., *

*

Petitioners, * Attorney Fees and Costs

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lawrence Disparti, Esq., Disparti Law Group PA, Holiday, FL, for petitioner.

Lynn Ricciardella, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2I issued 

a decision dismissing the petition on January 10, 2014. On May 29, 2014, petitioners 

filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. Accompanying their motion, was a General 

Order #9 statement in which their counsel conveyed that they incurred no personal 

litigation costs. Respondent has informally indicated to my chambers that she has no 

objection to the total amount of fees and costs requested by petitioners in their motion. 

 

 

1

 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted

invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will 

delete such material from public access.

2

The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. 

(2006). 
2

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the total $3,197.063in the 

form of a check payable jointly to petitioners and petitioners’ counsel of record

for petitioners’ attorney fees and costs.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Denise K. Vowell 

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master

 

3

This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all 

charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. 

Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including 

costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 924 

F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).

4

Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
No. 52715.

protests 136205-K, etc. (New York).

#### G. Granucci & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protests were sustained to this extent.