alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
~ 2084 700YES

“Opportunities to Improve Air Quality through Transportation Pricing”

Errata Sheet

page 2 - Dialogue box - Societal Costs - This section should read

e Increased traffic congestion and travel times

e Increased money spent to construct, maintain, and monitor the transportation system
e Need for additional public services to handle the problems caused by accidents

page 26 - Dialogue box - Last sentence should read (See Appendix A for more information on
these projects.)

page 105 - California SR-91 Project

. This project was not opened as a project under the Federal Highway Administration’s
(FHWA) Pilot Programs.
. This facility is privately owned and operated by the California Private Transportation

Company. However, the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, and Caltrans have jointly funded a monitoring and evaluation study of
this project.

. The program is marketed as FasTrak.

page 112, 114 and Table 3-2 - San Diego I-15 Express Lanes Project

. Since 1988, the facility has contained two express lanes that are accessible, free of
charge, to high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) - i.e., vehicles with two or more occupants.
To increase utilization of the express lanes and relieve traffic congestion on the regular
lanes, single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) are now being given the opportunity to use the
express lanes for a fee/toll. (HOVs will continue to pay no toll.)

. This program has not weakened the incentives for motorists to rideshare. HOV usage has
increased by 15% since the facility’s inception according the San Diego State
University’s Evaluation of the pricing project.

Page 115 - Southern California Association of Governments

. Under sub-heading “Institutional Issues”, FHWA is also a partner in this effort.

G\RSPDIMIPRICEDOCWCORRECT2 WPD_
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable James P. Jones, United States District Judge for the *

*

Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUCAS GERARDO SANCHEZSANDOVAL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 11-10385

 11-10610

D.C. Nos. 4:11-cr-50017-CKJ 

 4:11-cr-50016-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James P. Jones, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted November 13, 2012*** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Lucas Gerardo Sanchez-Sandoval appeals

FILED

NOV 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10385 & 11-10610

from the revocation of his supervised release and the consecutive 21-month

sentences imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Sanchez-Sandoval’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Sanchez-Sandoval the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

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

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

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d

974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-5011 THE CNA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-CV-858, Judge Marian Blank Horn.

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of the United States' motion for an extension of time, until June 4, 2009, to file the joint appendix, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT
/s/Jan Horbalv Date cc: Alexander D. Tomaszczuk, Esq. Matthew H. Solomson, Esq. Jan Horbaly Clerk PILED US e0URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT JUN 09 2009 s8 mhhouluir.wi CLERK 

## JUN - 9 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements found in the Company's Report on Form 10-KSB for the 
year ended December 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference 
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          52,719
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  668,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,852
<INVENTORY>                                    683,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,590,523
<PP&E>                                      11,741,724
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,047,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,526,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,006,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,715,798
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,171,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,526,144
<SALES>                                     11,094,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,586,676
<CGS>                                        7,542,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,542,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,974,682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             290,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,221,262)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    76,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,297,594)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,594)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.63)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Dave & Busters, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen M. King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 14, 2010

/s/ Stephen M. KingStephen M. King Chief
Executive Officer
LUCAS A. ROBERTS

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILE D

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1662

Opinion filed August 19, 2014.

Petition Seeking Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Lucas A. Roberts, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition s eeking belated appeal is denied on the merits.

ROBERTS, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR.
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, 2009 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 25,
2010


By
              /s/ Richard W. TurnerRichard
      W. Turner, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCenter of Excellence for Applied Mathematical and Statistical Research in support of development of multicrop production monitoring capabilityEfforts in support of the development of multicrop production monitoring capability are reported. In particular, segment level proportion estimation techniques based upon a mixture model were investigated. Efforts have dealt primarily with evaluation of current techniques and development of alternative ones. A comparison of techniques is provided on both simulated and LANDSAT data along with an analysis of the quality of profile variables obtained from LANDSAT data.Document ID19840011885Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWoodward, W. A.*(Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas, TX, United States)*Gray, H. L.*(Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1983Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberE84-10062SR-63-04444NAS 1.26:171729NASA-CR-171729Accession Number84N19953Funding Number(s)PROJECT: PROJ. AGRISTARSCONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-16438Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840011885.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Shirley DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otto E. PASSMAN, Congressman of the United States, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 75-1691.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 17, 1977.

Stephen J. Katz, Monroe, La., George M. Strickler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Harold Himmelman, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D. C., for Hon. Morris Udall, et al., amicus curiae (on Rehearing).

Jesse D. McDonald, Monroe, La., for defendant-appellee.

Robert E. Kopp, Appellate Sec., Civil Div., Barbara L. Herwig, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae for the United States.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 3, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 544 F.2d 865)

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORN-BERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-518-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

September 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 5, 1997 Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing certain revised tariff 
sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, which tariff 
sheets are enumerated in Appendix A attached to the filing. The 
proposed effective date of such tariff sheets is October 6, 1997.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to conform 
the provisions of Transco's Rate Schedule S-2 storage service to the 
service currently provided by Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 
(Texas Eastern) to Transco under Texas Eastern's Rate Schedule X-28. 
Transco's purchase of Rate Schedule X-28 service is the means by which 
Transco provides service to its customers under Rate Schedule S-2. The 
X-28 service has changed from a ``gas lending and borrowing'' service 
to a traditional storage service, thereby necessitating corresponding 
changes to Transco's Rate Schedule S-2 service.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its S-
2 customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24459 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Obie Mae JEFFERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees and Appellants, and Dorothy Mae Bowie Wilkerson et al. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants and Appellees.

No. 6102.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1977.

Rehearings Denied Oct. 11, 1977.

Writs Refused Nov. 23, 1977.

William J. Doran, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendants and appellees and appellants.

Neblett & Führer by Robert B. Neblett, Jr., Daniel E. Broussard, Jr., Alexandria, for plaintiffs and appellants and appellees, Obie Mae Jefferson and Dorothy Mae Wilkerson.

Sandoz, Sandoz & Schiff by Leslie J. Schiff, Opelousas, for plaintiffs and appellants and appellees, Leanee Matthews Barnes et al.

James A. Bolen, Jr., Alexandria, for defendants and appellees and appellants, Brassel Enterprises.

Reeves, Lossen & Owens by R. R. Reeves, Jr., and Jack F. Owens, Jr., Harrisonburg, for plaintiffs and appellants and appellees.

Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and FORET, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the companion case of *Leanna Matthews Barnes, et*
      *295
      *al., and Mary Ann Dunbar Wilkerson, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.,*La.App., 350 So.2d 288, in which a separate decision is being rendered by us this date, the judgment of the district court in the present case is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the State of Louisiana through the Department of Highways, insofar as such costs may be assessed against a state agency.

AFFIRMED.
**Certification of Principal Financial Officer 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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of Ministry Partners Investment Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Gabriel B. Encarnacion, Principal 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 the best of 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. 

Dated: March 29, 2006              
MINISTRY PARTNERS INVESTMENT CORPORATION
 
 
 
By: /s/ Gabriel B. Encarnacion
Gabriel B. Encarnacion

Principal Financial Officer
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                    |   |                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                                    |   |                               |   |
| Date:  August      14, 2009    |   | /s/ Weibing      Lu           |   |
|                                                    |   | Weibing      Lu                    |   |
|                                                    |   | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|                                                    |   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC. CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
36 WEEKS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  4, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001076405
<NAME>                        The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-04-1999
<CASH>                                         164
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                   50
<INVENTORY>                                    309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,717
<PP&E>                                         4,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,087
<BONDS>                                        3,272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,844
<SALES>                                        5,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,319
<CGS>                                          3,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                178
<INCOME-TAX>                                   69
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            109
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.93



</TABLE>
#### Lucious STRINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1971.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Norman J. Kapner, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAGER, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying an evidentiary hearing and post-conviction relief. Appellant, who was convicted of attempted robbery after a jury trial, sought an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of showing that at his trial the state made knowing use of perjured testimony.

We have considered the briefs and the record on appeal filed therein and upon full consideration thereof it is our view that appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the order reviewed herein and the same must be accordingly affirmed.

In order for a movant to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Cr.P.R. 1.-850, 33 F.S.A., where the use of perjured testimony is alleged as a basis therefor, the movant is required to allege in his petition the *knomng*use of perjured testimony (i. e. the state prosecuting officials were aware of the falsity of the alleged perjured testimony) and such allegations must be supported by sufficient documentary evidence or affidavits to this effect. Conyers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 616, cert. den. Fla., 222 So.2d 749; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529. See also Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 335; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 324; Gilliard v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 902; Buchanan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 225; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir. 1958, 259 F.2d 125; 24 U. of M.L.Rev. 218 (1970).

Appellant’s motion fails to meet this test. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**STEVEN JUNIOR MABLE,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**STEPHEN P. LINEBAUGH, P.J.,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 69 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of June, 2015, the Application for Le ave to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is** DENIED **, and the**

**Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.**