alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# September auditorium streaming events archive

By Dana ThornburyDLA Land and Maritime

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The video archive is CAC enabled and restricted to DLA associates.

## September 6

                              - FL Director's Call

## September 13

                              - Acquisition Forum

## September 15

                              - POW/MIA Day

## September 20

                              - FM Director's Call

## September 27

                              - Hispanic Heritage Month

## September 28

                              - LDC Speaking Event
                              - J61 Town Hall

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MVideo L&MCouncils L&MPOW/MIA
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 19

- 60501 Summary Calendar

San Juana Alvarez

- De Sauceda,

Petitioner ,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson , Acting U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A091 374 218

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa , Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * San Juana Alvarez

- De Sauceda , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) d enying her second motion to reopen and declining to sua sponte reopen the proceedings. For the following reasons, the petition for review is d enied

.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 3, 2021 Lyle W. Ca yce Clerk Case: 19-60501 Document: 00515731141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2021No. 19

- 60501

2 Motions to reopen are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski , 216 F.3d 487,
49 6 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2005) . This court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless it is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly with out foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 303

- 04 (internal citation omitted). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and this

court will not disturb such findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 51 7

- 18 (5th Cir. 2012)

. We need not decide whether the BIA properly held that Alvarez

- De Sauceda’s motion to reopen was untimely and that s he was not entitled to equitable tolling. Even assuming that h er motion was timely, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the moti on on the alternative ground that Alvarez

- De Sauceda failed to show that she was entitled to cancellation of removal. See Yanez

- Pena v. Barr , 952 F.3d 239, 241 (5th Cir. 2020) , petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 6, 2020) (No. 19

- 1208) . A perfected notice to appear triggers the stop

- time rule w h en an alien receives all required information, whether in one document or more. See id. Moreover, Pierre

- Paul v. Barr,
930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019) , cert denied , 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020), forecloses Alvarez

- De Sauceda’s argument s that her notice to appear did not vest the IJ with jurisdiction. See Thompson v. Dallas City Att’y’s Office , 913 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2019)

. Insofar as Alvarez

- De Sauceda claims that her notice to appear viol ated her right to due process, “ no liberty interest exists in a motion to reopen, and therefore due process claims are not cognizable in the context of reopening proceedings.” Mejia v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DE NIED

. Case: 19-60501 Document: 00515731141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

FREDYS A. MARTINEZ A/K/A FREDDY 

A. MARTINEZ, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 69277 

FILED 

JAN 1 2 2016 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

TRACE K. UNDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY •3 •V 

DEPLACCirEfFlit( 

This is a pro se appeal from a purported decision denying a 

postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge. 

No decision, oral or written, had been made on the petition 

when appellant filed his appeal on November 20, 2015. 1Because appellant 

failed to designate an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

I Ae, 

Hardesty 

Saitta 

The documents before this court do not indicate that a 

postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed in district 

court case number C226586, the case number designated in the notice of 

appeal. In light of this order, the pro se motions filed on December 22, 

2015, are denied as moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 16,- oo gq 7 
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Fredys A. Martinez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, David J. Obernesser, Chief Financial Officer of Correctional
Properties Trust (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
         December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
         on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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




Date: March 12, 2003                        /s/ DAVID J. OBERNESSER
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           David J. Obernesser
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           Correctional Properties Trust
99-0640 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Jessie J. LEDET v. Dina Marie LEIGHTON, et al.

No. 99-C-0640.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Leighton, Dina Marie Et Al;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-0952; Parish of Lafayette 15th Judicial District Court Div. “A” Number 94-1656

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. and KNOLL, J. would grant the writ.

LEMMON, J. not on panel.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-444-CV

CADALIN, LLC	APPELLANT

	V.

GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant attempts to appeal from a trial court order granting a partial summary judgment in favor of appellee.  On January 4, 2006, we notified appellant that we were concerned that this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order granting summary judgment is a partial summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties in the case; thus, it does not appear to be a final, appealable order or an appealable interlocutory order.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001).  We stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before January 17, 2006.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  We have not received any response.

	Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 9, 2006
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 1:08 PM

To: 'info@windshearmedia.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Informatio n: Windshear Media, LLC (FAA-2015-1292)



### June 18, 2015

Dear Mr. Cook:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1292). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above July 2, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE 

I, Walter Thomas Price III, a Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the General Partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.(the “Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. 

Date: May 17, 2010 

By: /s/ WalterThomas Price III

Walter Thomas Price III 

Managing Member (Principal Executive Officer) 

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. 

GeneralPartner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 7**  **5 79** 

KORELL BATTLE ,

P laintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

DARRYL KING; JAN PITTMAN; SCDC ,
Defendants

- Appellee s
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 2 :1 2

- cv
- 0 2476

- CMC )

Submitted : December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Korell Battle , Appellant Pro Se. Nikole D. Haltiwanger, Roy F. Laney, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C. Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Korell Battle appeals the district court ’ s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible e rror. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Battle
v. King , No. 2:12

- cv
- 02476

- CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2013) . We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          83,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,533,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,080,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,966,545
<PP&E>                                       1,758,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,225,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,693,679
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,456
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,176,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,225,079
<SALES>                                      3,357,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,357,777
<CGS>                                        2,709,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,709,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               574,464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,971
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Energy employees give through Toys for Tots 

By Elizabeth Stoeckmann, DLA Energy Public Affairs

                FORT BELVOIR, Virginia  –              *Editor’s Note: This article is part of an ongoing series describing the important services and support provided by the charities listed in the Combined Federal Campaign’s Catalog of Giving, as experienced by a member of the Defense Logistics Agency Energy workforce. This article highlights a charitable organization that focuses on the collection and delivery of toys for less fortunate children to experience the joy of Christmas in the Northern Virginia and Washington D.C. area. The CFC drive has been extended through the month of December.*toysfortots.org

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Kansas City Southern de México, S.A. de C.V. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Upchurch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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/ Michael W. UpchurchMichael W. UpchurchChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


February 9, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kansas City Southern de
México, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case No. 6,965.

#### HYDE v. BAKER.

[Cited in Crane v. Morrison, Case No. 3.355. Nowhere reported: opinion not now accessible.]
33826.

33827.

#### EDMONDS v. CITY OF ALBANY. HOMER v. CITY OF ALBANY.

Submitted July 14, 1978

Decided November 21, 1978.

Marshall, Justice.

The appellants were convicted in recorder’s court of violation of a municipal ordinance of the City of Albany, Code 1963, § 16-6, which provides, "No person shall wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer.” On writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Dougherty County, the convictions were affirmed, giving rise to the present appeal.

1. The attack in recorder’s court on the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance on the ground that it is void and in violation of Art. I, Sec. IV, Par. I of the Georgia Constitution of *1945*(Code Ann. § 2-401), is treated as properly raising the issue with respect to Art. I, Sec, II, Par. VII of the *1976*Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-207), the wording of which is identical to that in the 1945 Constitution. See *Lambert v. City of Atlanta,*242 Ga. 645 (2) (1978).

2. The ordinance is subject to the appellants’ constitutional attack. The State of Georgia has preempted the field in this respect by the enactment of Code Ann. § 26-2505 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1313): "Any person who knowingly and wilfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.” In *Wooten v. State,*135 Ga. App. 97 (1) (217 SE2d 350) (1975), the Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s wilful failure or refusal to comply with a lawful order or direction of a police officer (the conduct prohibited by the municipal ordinance in question) constituted a violation of Code Ann. § 26-2505, supra. *See Lambert v. City of Atlanta,*supra, (4), and cits. In the case sub judice, similarly to the situation in *Lambert,*there has been no legislative authorization for municipalities to enact ordinances proscribing the conduct within the purview of Code Ann. § 26-2505, supra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Jordan and Bowles, J J., who dissent.*

*649
      *Young & Associates, Sharon L. Tucker,*for appellant.

*James Davis,*for appellee.

*Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor, Charles Hadaway, Assistant Solicitor,*amicus curiae.