alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Products & Services

**  Publicly Available Collections				**   Access-Controlled Sites (Sign In Required)				

**  Publicly Available Collections

**DoD S&T Reports**

**PubDefense** PubDefense publications have been integrated into our new search capabilities.Please try Minsky or Dimensions to complete your research.Peer-reviewed scholarly publications that are the result of DoD and ODNI/IARPA-funded research.

**DoD Grant Awards** DoD Grant Awards have been integrated into our new search capabilities.Please try Minsky or Dimensions to complete your research.

----

**DoD Information Analysis Centers**

**Defense Innovation Marketplace**

**Corporate Source Authority System**

----

**NDIA Conference Proceedings**

**DTIC Thesaurus**

**Section 809 Panel Reports**

**   Access-Controlled Sites (Sign In Required)

**A DoD-issued CAC, PIV card, or ECA is required to access these sites.**

**Search Controlled DTIC Collections**

**Submit Documents**

**Journal of DoD Research & Engineering (JDR&E)**

----

**DoDTechipedia**

**Horizons**

**SMARTools**

**SMARTools is currently unavailable.****S**e**M**antic **A**nalysis & **R**esearch **T**oolsAnalyze or enrich content using a suite ofSemantic and Natural Language Processing (NLP) services.

----

**Sign In**See more access-controlled products and services through DTIC's R&E Gateway.

- DoD Privacy Program
- FOIA
- Fulcrum IT Advancement Strategy
- Information Analysis Centers
- Information Quality
- Legal
- Mission Statement
- No FEAR Act
- Open Government
- Plain Writing
- Policy Memoranda
- Privacy Policy
- SAPR
- Strategic Plan
- USA.Gov
- USD(R&E)

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

**LinkedIn Icon

(800) 225-3842         Contact Us

8725 John J. Kingman RoadFort Belvoir, Virginia, 22060-6218

NOTICE:  The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the DTIC of non-U.S. Government sites or the information, products, or services contained therein.  Although the DTIC may or may not use these sites as additional distribution channels for Department of Defense information, it does not exercise editorial control over all of the information that you may find at these locations.  Such hyperlinks are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this website. The DTIC bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external website or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external website for answers to questions regarding its content. Please let us know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134555 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134555 

 COA: 275793 

Charlevoix CC: 02-073009-FH 

JOHN JOSEPH SHULICK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

t1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Willie C. SOLOMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

Willie C. Solomon, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order of judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Robert Lee HILL v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50295.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 7, 1977.

Donald G. Kruger, Prentiss, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson Davis County; R. I. Prichard, III, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26951]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-144-007]


K N Wattenberg Transmission Limited Liability Co.; Notice of 
Tariff Compliance Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, K N Wattenberg Transmission 
Limited Liability Company (Wattenberg), tendered for filing as part of 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheet, to be effective November 1, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 66A

    Wattenberg states that this tariff sheet is being filed to comply 
with the OPR's Letter Orders issued June 2, June 26, and July 28, 1997, 
requiring the filing of actual tariff sheets, the correction of 
pagination errors, the inclusion of GISB Stand 4.3.6 pertaining to the 
publication of information on the Internet and the adoption of the GISB 
Model Trading Partner Agreement.
    Wattenberg states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Wattenberg's jurisdictional customers, interested public bodies, and 
all parties to the proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests must be 
filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26951 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3122

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to provide 
    for the denial of certain applications for solar or wind energy 
            development projects right-of-way applications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 25, 2023

 Mr. Risch (for himself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to provide 
    for the denial of certain applications for solar or wind energy 
            development projects right-of-way applications.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Don't Develop Obstructive 
Infrastructure on our Terrain Act'' or the ``Don't DO IT Act''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF CERTAIN SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 
              RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATIONS.

    Section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(43 U.S.C. 1761) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Solar or Wind Energy Development Project Right-of-Way 
Applications.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in 
the case of a solar or wind energy development project right-of-way 
application submitted under this section, the Secretary shall deny the 
application if the Secretary has received from the Governor of the 
State in which the proposed project is located notice that the State 
legislature has enacted legislation disapproving the proposed 
project.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 21-97]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings and oral hearings for the transaction of Commission business 
and other matters specified, as follows:

Date and Time: Tuesday, October 14, 1997, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Subject Matter:

(1) Oral Hearings and Hearings on the Record on Objections to 
Individual Proposed Decisions on Claims of Holocaust Survivors Against 
Germany;
(2) Issuance of Individual Final Decisions on Claims of Holocaust 
Survivors Against Germany.

Status: Closed.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or 
advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be 
directed to: Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. 
Telephone: (202) 616-6988.

    Dated at Washington, DC, October 3, 1997.
Judith H. Lock,
Administrative Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-26717 Filed 10-3-97; 3:44pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-U
#### Arthur McCALL, a/k/a Arthur McCoy, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-898.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 18, 1971.

Rehearing, Denied June 11, 1971.

S. George Berkley, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant has been granted a delayed appeal from his judgment of conviction for the crime of rape.

He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict and that certain statements made by the prosecution during closing argument were so inflammatory that he was deprived of a fair trial and due process of law.

Upon review of the record, and without delineating it, we find sufficient, competent and substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict returned by the jury.

We observe that no objections were made during the trial to any of the prosecution remarks which are claimed to be prejudicial and inflammatory upon appeal. The record shows, in addition, that the remarks made by the prosecution in closing argument were based upon facts established in the record or reasonably inferable from such facts. See Frenette v. State, 158 Fla. 675,29 So.2d 869 (1947).

The judgment of conviction is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2

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

           I, Kevin Connelly, as Chief Financial Officer of Taro Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Form 20-F report for the period ending December
31, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                              By: /s/ Kevin Connelly
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Kevin Connelly
Date:  April  30, 2003                           Senior Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131218 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131218 

 COA: 259299 

Oakland CC: 04-196006-FH 

JESSE JAMES HAYES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2006 

judgment 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. 

s0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
#### COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY v. Joseph N. TRAIGLE, Collector of Revenue.

No. 11533.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1977.

John V. Parker, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee Colonial Pipeline Co.

Whit M. Cook, II, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendant-appellant Joseph N. Trai-gle.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

CHIASSON, Judge.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in *“Colonial Pipeline Company v. Joseph N. Traigle, Collector of Revenue,”*No. 11,531, 353 So.2d 728, the judgment of the Trial Court herein is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

COVINGTON, J.,

dissents for the reasons set forth by this Court in *Chicago Bridge & Iron v. Cocreham,*La.App., 303 So.2d 750.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sense Technologies
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Rule 13a-14(b), that to his
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: July 19, 2007 | By: | /s/ Bruce E. Schreiner                         
|-------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Bruce E. Schreiner                             
|                     |     | President and Principal Financial
      Officer

---
#### McGIFFIN & CO., Inc., a corporation, et al., Appellants, v. SCAPA DRYERS, INC., a corporation, etc., Appellee.

No. M-204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 18, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
#### Isaac ARTIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 1970.

Isaac Artis in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Bertone v. State, 224 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.1969) and Perkins v. State, 228 So.2d 382 (Fla.1969).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, 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 Quarterly Report of Freedom Environmental Services Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Daniels, Chief
Executive Officer 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 and belief:





(1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







/s/  Mark
      DanielsMark
      DanielsCEO





Date: May
20, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Hills, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ David B. Hills     
|Name:                |  | David B. Hills         
|Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer

I, John Simonelli, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ John Simonelli     
|Name:                |  | John Simonelli         
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-31858, 333-654472, 333-22201 and
333-05927) and in Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-75957, 333-90933 and
333-49194) of The Med-Design Corporation of our report dated March 22, 2002
except as to Note 18 which is as of March 25, 2002 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 1, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARIA NIKOLAYEVNA KORZHINA, 

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

Nos. 11-71906

12-70201

Agency No. A099-912-023

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,** District

Judge.

 

Daria Nikoayevna Korzhina, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

FILED

OCT 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
On appeal, she contends the BIA’s denial of her petition was not supported

by substantial evidence and that the record compels the conclusion that the harm

she suffered rose to the level of persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483 (1992). Korzhina also argues the BIA should have granted her motion to

reopen to present evidence showing country conditions have changed, and seeks a

remand for that purpose.

The government does not defend the agency decision on the merits. It

contends the BIA exceeded the scope of its review by engaging in improper fact

finding under Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2012). The government

asks us to remand for the BIA to address the merits of the Immigration Judge’s

decision and motion to reopen. In her reply, Petitioner contends that because the

government waived any arguments going to the merits of her position, her petition

must be granted. See Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 2009)

(arguments not raised in an answering brief are waived). 

We are faced with the unusual situation in which the parties effectively agree

the BIA erred in how it handled Petitioner’s application. Granting the petition to

reopen would permit both parties to offer evidence to help resolve the application

in light of current country conditions. Under such circumstances, the motion to

reopen should be granted. Ms. Korzhina’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial

2
of her motion to reopen is GRANTED, and we remand on an open record to allow

the BIA to resolve the application in light of current country conditions. 

Petition GRANTED and REMANDED.

3