alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , F E RNA ND O R AMON - XO L I O, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10014 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 7 - c r - 0 0 5 2 7 - RCC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona R ane rC . C ol l i ns , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , W A L L A C E , an dT H O M A S , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . F e rn an d o R a m o n - X o lio ap p e a ls f r o m h is ju ry - tr ia l c o n v ic tio n a n d5 1 - m o n th s e nt e nc e f

ora s s aul ton af

e de r a l of f i c e r , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 111( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) . P ur s uantt o A n de r

s v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), R am o n -X o li o ’s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d the appe l l antw i th the



# FI LED DE C 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10014 2 opportuni tyt o f

i l e apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a lbr i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f or a ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
# DLA Aviation employees share resiliency stories

/ Published Dec. 8, 2016
Richmond, Virginia, 
On the Defense Logistics Agency’s resiliency webpage, resilience is defined as how one deals effectively with pressure, ambiguous and emerging conditions, and multiple tasks; remains optimistic and persistent, even under adversity or uncertainty.  Recovers quickly from setbacks.  Anticipates changes and learns from mistakes.

In the recently released videos, DLA Aviation employees share their personal resiliency stories. Listen to their stories on DLA’s YouTube channel. The participants are Teresa Smith, director of the Business Process Support Directorate, John Johnson, sourcing strategist in the Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate, Noel Romey, information technology specialist in the Information Operations Directorate, Daryl Horne, source strategy specialist in the Planning Process Directorate, and a previously released video of Marcus Miller, demand supply chain analyst in the Business Process Support Directorate. 

These videos are part of DLA’s Resiliency effort and are part of the five core values of DLA’s Strategic Plan – Integrity, Resiliency and Diversity, Innovation, Accountability and Excellence. 

These videos are shared with employees to show what it means to be resilient and to motivate and encourage others to develop resiliency. 

Employee resiliency is something we can all support. The Profiles in Resiliency video series highlights different employees, across DLA, sharing their story and what they do to stay strong and resilient. For more information about DLA's program visit: www.dla.mil/info/resiliency.

This program is to further the resiliency message and to ensure all employees are aware of the available resources to help with personal or work related issues.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony WILLIS.

No. 61544.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

*184Allen R. Ingram, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., Byron P. Legendre, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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








Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)
of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of NeoPharm, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “10-K Report”) that:





(1)
            the
      10-K 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 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated:  March
      27, 2008
            /s/
      Laurence P. BirchLaurence
      P. BirchPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
    Officer





______________________


* This
certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.








81
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45408-45409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3329-000]


NEPOOL Executive Committee; Notice of Filing

August 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 18, 1997, the NEPOOL Executive Committee 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal

[[Page 45409]]

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 285.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before September 2, 1997. 
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 motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22772 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1755 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1755

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 200 South Barrington Street in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                        ``Karl Malden Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2005

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 200 South Barrington Street in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                        ``Karl Malden Station''.

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

SECTION 1. KARL MALDEN STATION.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 200 South Barrington Street in Los Angeles, California, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Karl Malden Station''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Karl 
Malden Station''.
                                 <all>
```
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

# DSCR recognizes National Disability Employment Awareness Month with inspirational program

By Leon W. MooreDLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, Virginia  –              George Dennehy

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviation; People & Culture;  National Disability Employment Awareness Month
#### BAKER REALTY, INC., et al. v. Roland V. McKNEELY.

No. 61313.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1978.

In re: Roland V. McKneely, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. 352 So.2d 263.

Writ denied.
#### Alvin THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-430.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 25, 1969.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and John M. Gilbert, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Chief Judge.

Defendant along with two codefendants was informed against and charged with the crime of robbery. The public defender was appointed to represent him and a plea of not guilty was entered and the case was set for trial on May 16, 1967.

Prior to the trial and after a thorough examination as to the voluntariness of defendant’s plea, the court allowed the defendant to change his plea of not guilty to one of guilty as charged. The trial judge then sentenced defendant to a term of five years with time already spent in jail allowed against the sentence.

Subsequently, defendant filed a Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix motion to vacate and set aside the judgment, charging that this plea was involuntarily given and was improperly induced by promises of leniency and threats from the defendant’s court appointed attorney; that he was not advised of his rights to have counsel present during in-custody interrogation; and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because the same counsel represented him and two co-defendants upon the same charge.

After a hearing on the motion the trial judge denied same and this appeal followed.

As to the voluntariness of the plea, the record shows that appellant was questioned and examined, and promised nothing. His rights were explained to him and nothing was promised to him to obtain his plea of guilty. All of the constitutional safeguards were followed.

His second contention is without merit because he entered a plea of guilty to the charge and no statement taken from him during in-custody interrogation was used.

*36His third contention is without merit because it has been answered by the Supreme Court in Belton v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 97, and State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98.

For these reasons the trial judge properly denied defendant’s motion.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         556,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  589,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,860
<INVENTORY>                                    782,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,965,873
<PP&E>                                         229,516
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,265,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          288,372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,032
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,970,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,976,751
<SALES>                                      4,239,423          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,274,533        
<CGS>                                        3,170,948        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,138,305        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,701
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,701
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32(a)



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 of Citizens Holding Company (the Company), as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
Report), I, Greg L. McKee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Greg L. McKee      
|                        |  | Greg L. McKee          
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-ASW-05]


Revision of Class E Airspace; Alice, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revokes the Class E surface airspace at Alice, TX. Communication 
capability with aircraft operating within the surface area no longer 
exists; therefore, Class E surface airspace designated to provide 
controlled airspace for terminal instrument operations is no longer 
required. The direct final rule is intended to revoke Class E surface 
airspace for aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) for 
terminal operations at Alice International Airport, Alice, TX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 62 FR 28340 is 
effective 0901 UTC, September 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 
(817) 222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 23, 1997 (62 
FR 28340). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on September 11, 1997. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this action confirms that the direct final rule will 
be effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 5, 1997.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 97-22504 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-19-M
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

I, Alex Werber, the Chief Financial Officer of Tissera, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
      ended October 31, 2006 (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 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.

Dated: December 14, 2006


                                     By: /s/ Alex Werber
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                     Name: Alex Werber
                                     Title: Chief Financial Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 176 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric 

project in the State of Alaska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2005 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT. 

5 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

6 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

7 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com8 mission project numbered 11480, the Commission may, at 

9 the request of the licensee for the project, and after rea10 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili-
2

•S 176 IS

1 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and 

2 the Commission’s procedures under that section extend 

3 the time period during which the licensee is required to 

4 commence the construction of the project for 3 consecutive 

5 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years after the 

6 date of issuance of the license.

Æ
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 453- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG IN RE EFRA IN M A LDONA DO On Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on Re la t o r, E f ra in Ma ld o n a d o , p ro s e , f il e d a p e t it io n fo r writo f m a n d a m u s in t h e a b o ve caus e on Jul y

28, 2008. T he Cour

t, hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi dered th e pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus , i s o f the opi nio n that rel ator has not show n hi msel f entit led to the reli ef soug ht. T he petit ion generall y fail s t o c omply

w it h Texas Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 52.3 and doe s n ot i ncl ude a suffici ent re cord to est abl is h the r ig ht t o mandamus reli ef. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3 , 52. 7. Fur ther , t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus fail s t o es tabl is h tha t t he dis tr ict c our

t has abu sed it s d is creti on or v iol ated a duty

i mposed by

l aw . Rel ator

has not show n tha t t he tr ial court : (1 ) had a leg al duty to per form a no ndi sc re ti onar

y act, (2 ) w as ask ed to per

form the act , and ( 3)fail ed or refused to do s o. See In r e Chavez , 62 S.W .3d2

225, 228 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2001, or ig . proceed ing ). Acco rd ing ly , the petit ion for w ri t of mandamus ishereby

D EN IED
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8( a)
.

PERC UR IAM
Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s 3 0th d ay

of Jul y , 200 8.