alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Huey P. WILLIAMS v. Eugene SCROGGY, Superintendent, Caddo Correctional Institute.

No. 62271.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Huey P. Williams, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of Caddo.

Writ denied.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50594

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY HINOJOS MUNOZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(M0-97-CR-3-1)

 

May 27, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Ricky Hinojos Munoz has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Munoz’s

response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED.
# Boosting Space Force’s first launch

/ Published April 1, 2020

Boosted with Defense Logistics Agency Energy-provided liquid propellant, the U.S. Space Force launched its first mission sending a military communications satellite into orbit from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, March 26.

The DLA Energy Aerospace team supplied rocket propellant for the United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket and hydrazine for the upper stage of the rocket and the satellite onboard.  

“As the nation battles against the coronavirus pandemic, I am proud of our team of acquisition professionals who helped support this launch executing critical support supplying vital space launch products,” said DLA Energy Aerospace Energy Director of Customer Operations Stephen Nichols. 

Based in San Antonio, Texas, Aerospace Energy is the Defense Department’s Integrated Materiel Manager for liquid rocket propellants and missile fuels, specialty chemicals, compressed gases and cryogens, in bulk quantities.

Despite reduced staffing in an effort to practice social distancing, the mission-essential launch continued as planned carrying in to space the sixth and final Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite for the joint service satellite communications system. DLA Energy provided support for all six AEHF satellites in the global, secure and protected communication system for military ground, sea and air assets. 

DLA Energy Aerospace Energy Director of Supplier Operations Douglas Smith said helping further the mission of the newest branch of the Armed Forces is of utmost importance to the Aerospace Energy team.  

“This launch was made possible through the hard work and diligence of Aerospace Energy staff,” Smith said. “Supporting space launch is always exciting, but it isn’t often you are able to say you supported the first of anything, so for us to be a part of this inaugural Space Force launch is special and meaningful.”

DLA Energy Aerospace Energy manages the worldwide acquisition of missile fuels, liquid propellants for space launch and satellites, aviator’s breathing oxygen and other bulk industrial chemicals and gases – including nitrogen, oxygen, argon, hydrogen and helium.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Chesapeake Bay ... health &restoration assessment [electronic resource].**
 
2006-pt1|2006-pt 2| 2007
 
SuDoc Number:EP 1.88/2:

Item Number: 0431-L-20 (online)

CGP systemNumber:000791769
August 10, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>

         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
         Galaxy Specialities, Inc. December 31, 2000 financial statements and is
         qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                            0001122063
<NAME>                                           Galaxy Specialities, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                                       US



<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>              1.00

<CASH>                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         28,000
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  0
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  0
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .00



</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

0222 

# Order

February 26, 2010

139450

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139450 COA: 292249 Wayne CC: 76-005523 DARRYL McGORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 14, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 99.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company")  certifies
to his knowledge that:

     (1)  The  Amendment  No.  1 to the  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q of the
          Company for the quarter ended March 22, 2003 (the "Amended Form 10-Q")
          fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Amended Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,  the  financial  conditions  and  results  of
          operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods referred
          to in the Amended Form 10-Q.


                                                   /s/ Alfred H. Drewes
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Alfred H. Drewes
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   May 22, 2003

The foregoing  certification  (the  "Certification")  is being furnished  solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained  by the Company in  accordance  with Rule  12b-11(d)  of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 1 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 2 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 3 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 4 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 5 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 6 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 7 of 8Case: 11-10552 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 8 of 8
# L_2023231EN.01011401.xml

| 20.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 231/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 231/114

---

DECISION (EU) 2023/1793 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 15 September 2023

appointing two Judges to the General Court

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The terms of office of 23 Judges of the General Court expired on 31 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The terms of office of 23 Judges of the General Court expired on 31 August 2019.

| (2) | In that context, Mr Saulius Lukas KALĖDA has been nominated for the post of Judge of the General Court for a term of office ending on 31 August 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In that context, Mr Saulius Lukas KALĖDA has been nominated for the post of Judge of the General Court for a term of office ending on 31 August 2025.

| (3) | In addition, under Articles 5 and 7 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and following the resignation of Mr Sten FRIMODT NIELSEN, a Judge should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of Mr Sten FRIMODT NIELSEN’s term of office, which runs until 31 August 2028. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In addition, under Articles 5 and 7 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and following the resignation of Mr Sten FRIMODT NIELSEN, a Judge should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of Mr Sten FRIMODT NIELSEN’s term of office, which runs until 31 August 2028.

| (4) | Ms Louise SPANGSBERG GRØNFELDT has been nominated for the vacant post. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Ms Louise SPANGSBERG GRØNFELDT has been nominated for the vacant post.

| (5) | The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of those candidates to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of those candidates to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Saulius Lukas KALĖDA is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 31 August 2025.

Article 2

Ms Louise SPANGSBERG GRØNFELDT is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 31 August 2028.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2023.

The President

M. ALONSO ALONSO

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24111]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decrees Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as Amended

    Notice is hereby given that on September 3, 1997, a proposed 
partial consent decree in United States v. Barrier Industries, Inc., et 
al., Civil Action No. 95 Civ. 9114 (JSR), was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
    In this action, the United States sought the recovery of response 
costs incurred by the United States with respect to the Barrier 
Industries Superfund Site (the ``Site'') in Port Jervis, New York. The 
proposed partial consent decree resolves the United States' claims 
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the Federal 
Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 3301 et seq., against 
defendants Harvey Wasserman and Linda Wasserman (``the Wassermans'') 
relating to the Site. Under the terms of the proposed partial consent 
decree, the Wassermans will pay $120,000 in satisfaction of the United 
States' claims.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed partial consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. Barrier Industries, Inc., et. al., Civil 
Action No. 95 Civ. 9114 (JSR), D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-1132.
    The proposed partial consent decree may be examined at the Office 
of the United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, 100 
Church Street, New York, New York 10007, at U.S. EPA Region II, 290 
Broadway, New York, New York 10007, and at the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. 
A copy of the proposed partial consent decree may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $10.75 (25 cent per page reproduction cost).
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-24111 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.46

                 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to the Change in Control by and between Bway
Corporation (the "Company") and Jean-Pierre M. Ergas ("Executive")(collectively,
the "Parties"), is entered into and effective as of the 1st of January, 2002
(the "Effective Date").

         WHEREAS, Executive is currently employed as Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company pursuant to an Employment
Agreement between the Company and Executive effective January 1, 2000 (the
"Employment Agreement");

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into a letter
agreement, dated August 30, 2001, whereby Executive may be entitled to enhanced
benefits upon a change in control of the Company (the "Change in Control
Agreement");

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to modify the Change in
Control Agreement, which modification shall be contemporaneous with the
effectiveness of this Amendment No. 1 to the Change in Control Agreement (the
"Amendment");

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree:

         1. Section 3(g) of the Change in Control Agreement shall be amended
and restated to read as follows:

            (a)      increase, if necessary, the amount of Your "Monthly
                     Retirement Payment" which You are due under the terms
                     and provisions of Section 11 of Your Employment
                     Agreement with the Company made as of January 1, 2000
                     and as may be amended thereafter (the "Employment
                     Agreement"), so that the total "Monthly Retirement
                     Payment" amount to which You are entitled under such
                     terms and provisions as modified by this Agreement
                     shall be the maximum amount possible under such terms
                     and provisions.

         2. Except as otherwise amended in this Amendment, all other sections of
the Change in Control Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as set
forth in the Change in Control Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.

                                    BWAY CORPORATION:

                                    By:      /s/ Alexander P. Dyer
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                             Alexander P. Dyer
                                             Chairman of Compensation Committee

                                    Date:    12/11/01
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                    Jean-Pierre M. Ergas:

                                             /s/ Jean-Pierre M. Ergas
                                    --------------------------------------------

                                    Date:    12/11/01
                                          --------------------------------------
#### Johnny Lee RANSOM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-4064

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1977.

*901Johnny Lee Ransom, pro se.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Paul H. Zacks, C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Attys. Gen., Palm Beach, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et*al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Ransom, a state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial without a hearing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that his conviction of violating Fla.Stat.Ann. § 790.23 (1976) infringed rights guaranteed him by the Federal Constitution. His primary contention is that Section 790.23 is void for vagueness. This argument is without merit. In order to survive constitutional challenge on this ground, a statute need only provide “the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” *Grayned v. City of Rockford,*408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227 (1972); *Dreske v. Holt,*536 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1976). Section 790.23 meets this standard.

In his reply brief, the petitioner suggests that the statute somehow deprives him of the presumption of innocence. We perceive no basis for this allegation. If it is an attempt to assert that the statute infringes equal protection by creating an invidious class — felons—who are forbidden to carry firearms, the argument is without merit. The district court’s decision is

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big 

Rodney, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rodney Edward Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Rodney Edward Wall seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking 

reconsideration of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 

(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the 

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Wall has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Wall’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain 

2 
3 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner 

must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered 

evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that 

would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable 

factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or 

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, 

made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral 

review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2008). Wall’s claims 

do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED