alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie J. WOODS.

No. 61346.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1978.

Thomas J. Ford, Jr., Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Vincent Paciera, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
254 La. 810

#### Clement A. PERTUIT v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.

No. 50047.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: New Orleans Police Department applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Civil Service Commission of the City of New Orleans, No. 445. 223 So.2d 900.

The application is denied. The judgment complained of is correct.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Feltus ANDERSON v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62206.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Feltus Anderson, applying for writ of review. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                          $   893,494
<SECURITIES>                         25,000
<RECEIVABLES>                       849,482
<ALLOWANCES>                         26,744
<INVENTORY>                         102,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,449,301
<PP&E>                            1,693,872
<DEPRECIATION>                      654,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,332,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               578,134
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                             25,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                        2,512,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,332,539
<SALES>                           1,408,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  3,218,115
<CGS>                             1,115,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,899,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   28,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     117,357
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 117,357
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        117,357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .005
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .005


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration
[Document Identifier: HCFA-R-211]


Emergency Clearance: Public Information Collection Requirements 
Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information. We are requesting an 
emergency review because the collection of this information is needed 
prior to the expiration of the normal time limits under OMB's 
regulations at 5 C.F.R. Part 1320, in order for States to apply for 
funds to enable them to initiate and expand the provision of child 
health assistance to uninsured, low-income children in an effective and 
efficient manner that is coordinated with other sources of health 
benefits coverage for children. States are able to use Title XXI funds 
for: (1) Establishing or expanding a separate child health insurance 
program, (2) expanding Medicaid coverage, or (3) through a combination 
of both. The Agency cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance 
procedures because public harm is likely to result if normal clearance 
procedures are followed.
    HCFA is requesting that OMB provide a Three Day review and a 180-
day approval.
    Type of Information Collection Request: New Collection; Title of 
Information Collection: State Child Health Plan; Form No.: HCFA-R-211; 
Use: This template will enable states to apply for funds to initiate 
and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low 
income children in a effective and efficient manner that is coordinated 
with other sources of health coverage for children; Affected Public: 
State, Local or Tribal Government; Number of Respondents: 56; Total 
Annual Responses: 56; Total Annual Hours: 8,960.
    To request copies of the proposed paperwork collections referenced 
above, call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written 
comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections 
should be sent within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB Desk 
Officer designated at the following address: OMB Human Resources and 
Housing Branch, Attention: Laura Oliven, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: August 29, 1997.
William Broglie,
HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA, Office of Information Services, 
Information Technology Investment Management Group, Division of HCFA 
Enterprise Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-23591 Filed 9-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P
255 La. 248

#### FIDELITY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Harry H. RIPLEY, in his capacity as the Administrator of the Estate of his minor child, Donald R. Ripley.

No. 50308.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1970.

In re: Fidelity General Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 228 So.2d 238.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47109-47110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33450]


Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co.--Corporate Family Transaction 
Exemption--Wisconsin and Calumet Railroad Company

    Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. (WSOR) and Wisconsin and Calumet 
Railroad Company (WICT),\1\ Class III railroads, have jointly filed a 
verified notice of exemption. The exempt transaction is a merger of 
WICT into WSOR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ WSOR and WICT are commonly-controlled by William E. Gardner. 
WSOR operates in the State of Wisconsin, and WICT operates in the 
States of Wisconsin and Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or about September 
1, 1997.
    The proposed merger is intended to enhance operating economies, 
improve service, foster greater operating efficiency, simplify the 
corporate structure, unify accounting and billing, and improve the 
financial viability of the surviving corporation.
    This is a transaction within a corporate family of the type 
specifically exempted from prior review and approval under 49 CFR 
1180.2(d)(3). The parties state that the transaction

[[Page 47110]]

will not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant 
operational changes, or a change in the competitive balance with 
carriers outside the corporate family.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption 
authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to 
protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does 
not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 
and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this 
transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the 
statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this 
transaction.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to reopen will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33450, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Robert A. Wimbish, Esq., Rea, Cross & Auchincloss, 1920 N 
Street, N.W., Suite 420, Washington, DC 20036.

    Decided: August 28, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23459 Filed 9-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Earnest TURNER, Jr.

No. 61717.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

D. Michael Hayes, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., Eric R. Harrington, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TATE, J.,

is of the opinion the case

should be remanded for the district court to set forth the reasons for the consecutive sentences. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 8941.
# 33 protégés graduate Land and Maritime mentoring program 

/ Published March 2, 2018
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
A ceremony at the Defense Supply Center Columbus recognized recent graduates of the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime’s Professional Self-Development Mentoring Program (Level I). 

 The Feb. 28 event highlighted the efforts of the 33 graduating protégés, along with 29 mentors who provided guidance and support throughout the duration of the program. 

 The Level I program provides professional development and learning opportunities for associates graded below the GS/WG-9 (General Salary/Wage Grade) level. It requires a one-year commitment from participants, who work with their mentors to advance and improve their competencies and skills. 

“The strategic relationships we build through the mentoring program give us a greater understanding of DLA as a whole,” said Sir Ovynten Rivera, a purchasing agent at DLA Land and Maritime and one of the graduating protégés. “The program exposes mentees to a vast support system of seasoned employees through its networking opportunities.” 

 To successfully complete the program, mentees must participate in at least seven online or live training events outside their normal work duties during the 12-month evaluation period. Mentees work with the program coordinator and their mentors to facilitate an action plan to meet their goals. 

 Since the program’s inception in 2005, more than 225 DLA associates have completed the Level I course. Many of those graduates later became mentors themselves. 

 Don Schulze, deputy chief of staff at DLA Land and Maritime, spoke during the graduation. He said the relationship between mentees and mentors provides benefits for everyone involved. He also thanked the managers and supervisors of the graduates for allowing their staff members the freedom to pursue personal and professional development throughout the past year. 

 “There are so many reasons why I think the mentoring programs are some of the best things offered at Land and Maritime,” Schulze said. “I can’t think of another organization that provides the same amount of attention and dedication as we do through these programs.” 

Schulze said experts across nearly every industry in both private and public sectors credit mentoring with contributing to professional success. In one study, nearly 85 percent of top business executives attribute their accomplishments to lessons learned from mentors as their careers were starting out. 

 “Mentoring is a lifelong journey,” said Schulze. “Congratulations to our protégés today, but don’t stop here. I know you’ve had great success, and it’s just the beginning. Keep pushing yourself to do better and show others what you’ve learned – and continue to grow in your careers.” 

DLA Land and Maritime also offers tiered mentoring programs for mid-grade and senior employees. The Level II Mentoring program is available for associates graded between GS-9 and GS-12 or equivalent. The Level III Advanced Mentoring Program for Leaders is a competitive leadership development course with a two-year commitment for associates in the GS-13 and GS-14 pay grades.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard W. Turner, 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 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.




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.





March 24, 2011


By
/s/ Richard W. TurnerRichard W. Turner, Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Date: September 2, 2011

/S/    THOMAS H.
RESLEWICThomas H. ReslewicChief Executive Officer


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.
#### Douglas McArthur STUBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 12, *1969.*

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1969.

*229Roger H. Grason, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

McCAIN, Judge.

Defendant, Douglas McArthur Stubbs, was convicted of rape and on appeal contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting into evidence the written statements of two co-defendants, which inculpated him. He avers that the error was not cured by the court’s admonishment to the jury not to consider those statements against him.

In light of Bruton v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, we conclude that error was committed and therefore reverse.

Defendant presented a pretrial motion to suppress his co-defendants’ statements, and alternatively moved for a severance. He also made a motion to exclude references to him in the statements, but each of his motions was denied.

Upon- consideration of the Bruton decision, the admission into evidence of the co-defendants’ statements did constitute prejudicial error as to the defendant, despite the trial court’s clear and precise instruction to the jury not to consider them against him.

The rationale of Bruton is that if a co-defendant does not testify, his confession adds weight to the case against the defendant in a form not subject to cross-examination, resulting in a constitutional error, which is not avoided by a jury instruction to disregard the co-defendant’s statement as to the defendant.

By reason of the Bruton rule, our Florida Supreme Court has very recently reversed a conviction in a case procedurally similar to this one wherein confessions of both the defendant and co-defendant were admitted at trial and considered by our supreme court to be corroborating evidence. Schneble v. State, Fla.1968, 215 So.2d 611.

In light of Bruton and Roberts v. Russell, 1968, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100, which holds that Bruton is applicable to a state proceeding and retroactive, we reverse and remand this cause for a new trial.

We have considered the defendant’s other points on appeal and find them without merit.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
# Commentary: Active Shooter Exercise from a Volunteers Viewpoint

/ Published June 29, 2018
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
As I read the May Command Daily Announcements, I came across, “ROLE PLAYER VOLUNTEERS NEEDED” and I was intrigued.Emergency Services needed volunteers to act as casualties, witnesses and various other roles for the Emergency Preparedness Exercise June 21.Moreover, I thought this sounded interesting and informative. So I thought to myself, **do it** – so I signed up.

It was not quite as easy as one might think.There were a couple of meetings involved.Emergency Services needed confirmation of my commitment and supervisor approval. I found out what the exercise would entail and which role I would play.No, I didn’t get one of the coveted “victims” or “Dead on Arrival” roles, but I was happy with running out of the building towards our police officers.

The big day arrived and all the volunteers were huddled in the break room.We watched the victims become bloody and gruesome right before our eyes and suddenly the seriousness of the exercise set in.We headed out to our various spots, waiting for the exercise to begin.

I was forewarned that even though it was a drill and I knew the whole plot, my adrenaline would rush.All of a sudden, you could hear the “pop, pop” of a gun.It was simulated and I knew exactly what time it would be going off, but my heart still started racing and a second or so of panic set in.The active shooter played his part well and I began to wonder what I would actually do should this ever happen to me, whether on Center or not.I had my directions and my script, and headed out the door to safety.I looked for those first responders and watched as the victims were evacuated.It’s a surreal sight, one I hope to never witness outside of an exercise.

I highly recommend you volunteer for this event and any events of similar nature.It’s an eye opening experience!
Bruce Freske

Refuge Manager

Mattamuskeet

National Wildlife Refuge

38 Mattamuskeet Road

Swan Quarter, NC 27885

Phone: (252) 926-4021

FAX: (252) 926-1743

mattamuskeet@fws.gov

July 2008
SERVED: October 7, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

REDEMPTION, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014- 0115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

We do not anticipate reaching this case prior to January 2015. 

Unless specifically changed herein all prior orders remain in effect. 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

1. On or before January 9, 2015, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 

2. The parties shall be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after January 

9, 2015, subject to the availability of courtroom facilities. The specific date and 

time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 

'-- c:: {-, 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation·Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

· Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

Brent R. Cole, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street , Suite 208 

Anchorage AK 99501 

TEL: 907-277-8001 

FAX: 907-277-8002 

ONE COPY 

Craig Wm. Black, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 West ih A venue, # 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5269 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 . 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2