alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Mark David Albert KLOTZ, Appellant.

No. 74-1069.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Oct. 1, 1974.

Ross and Stephenson, Circuit Judges, would grant rehearing en banc.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In a petition for rehearing the Government has called the court’s attention to 50 U.S.C. App. § 465(a) (1970). The section provides:

> (a) Every person shall be deemed to have notice of the requirements of this title upon publication by the President of a proclamation or other public notice fixing a time for any registration under section 3 [50 U.S. C. App. § 453],1

The Government asserts that by operation of this section of the Selective Service Act it was relieved of the burden of proving that defendant knowingly failed to register under 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a). We need not decide the correctness of this interpretation, for, in point of fact, the Government tried its case and briefed the appeal' without in any way relying upon this section of the statute. It can not now, after failing to prevail on its original theories, invoke an entirely new theory in support of conviction.

Had the Government proceeded to trial in reliance on this section, the defendant may very well have made a different election in the presentation of his defense, choosing instead, for example, to take the stand. Moreover, had the Government raised this section on appeal, the defendant could have prepared a reply for the court’s consideration. As it is, the petition has all the appearances of an afterthought.

Because the Government’s resort to 50 U.S.C. App. § 465(a) is not timely, we have no occasion to consider its application to the conviction before us. *See*Carr v. FTC, 302 F.2d 688, 691-692 (1st Cir. 1962). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges would grant a rehearing en banc.

1

. Seven proclamations, beginning with Proclamation No. 2799, July 20, 1948, 13 Fed. Reg. 4173, 62 Stat. 1531, have been issued by the President pursuant to this section.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Marine Hydraulics International, LLC 

Under Contract No. N50054-17-F-LOOO 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61866 

James A. Kelley, Esq. 

James A. Kelley & Associates 

Washington, DC 

Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Anthony Hicks, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: August 13, 2019 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61866, Appeal of Marine Hydraulics 

International, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
<PAGE>   1
The Board of Directors
OmniAmerica, Inc. (formerly Specialty Teleconstructors, Inc.):

          We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration 
statement (No. 333-18899) on Form S-8 of OmniAmerica Inc. (formerly Specialty 
Teleconstructors, Inc.) of our report dated August 29, 1997, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheet of OmniAmerica Inc. and subsidiaries (formerly 
Specialty Teleconstructors, Inc.) as of June 30, 1997, and the related 
consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for 
the year then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 1998, annual report 
on Form 10-KSB of OmniAmerica Inc. (formerly Specialty Teleconstructors, Inc.).

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Albuquerque, New Mexico
September 28, 1998
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Global Telecommunication Solutions, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-21339) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-6925, 333-19005 and 333-68577) of
Global Telecommunication Solutions, Inc. of our report dated April 9, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Global Telecommunication
Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December
31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Global Telecommunication Solutions,
Inc.

Our report dated April 9, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a
significant net working capital deficiency at December 31, 1998 and has not made
certain payments of taxes and regulatory fees, which raise substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
that uncertainty.


/s/ KPMG LLP
-------------------
KPMG LLP

April 14, 1999
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania



<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

RE:                           Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:

 

(1)                                     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 

 
|   | /s/   Michael J. Ulrich                                                                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael   J. Ulrich                                                                                |
|   | Vice   President                                                                                   |
|   | The   Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of SandRidge   Mississippian Trust I |

 

November 8, 2013

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 540 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 540

 To designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, 
New Hampshire, as the ``Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control 
                               Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2013

  Mrs. Shaheen (for herself and Ms. Ayotte) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, 
New Hampshire, as the ``Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control 
                               Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PATRICIA CLARK BOSTON AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC 
              CONTROL CENTER.

    (a) In General.--The air route traffic control center located in 
Nashua, New Hampshire, and any successor air route traffic control 
center at that location, shall be known and designated as the 
``Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the air route traffic 
control center referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control 
Center''.
                                 <all>
```
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE

OF MARYLAND

* COURT OF APPEALS

* OF MARYLAND

v.

* Misc. Docket AG No. 75

September Term, 20 20

NISHITH PATEL *

(No. 484952

- C

, Circuit

* Court for Montgomery

County)

O R D E R

Upon c onsideration of the Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent filed by the

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, Nishith Patel

, it is this

1 4 th day of Ma y

, 202 1

ORDERED

, by the Court of Appeal s of Maryland, that the Respondent, Nishith Patel

,

be

, and he hereby is, REPRIMANDED for violating Rules 1.4, 1.7, 1.15, 8.1(b), a nd 8.4(d)

of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.

/s/ Robert N. McDonald

S enior Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dhoruba Bin Wahad, Formerly Richard Moore, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter McQuillan, J.), entered March 15, 1990, granting defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of that court (Joseph A. Martinis, J.), entered April 26, 1973, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, *404of two counts of attempted murder, and one count of felonious possession of a weapon, for which defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

This case, arising out of a defendant’s participation in the shooting of two police officers on May 19, 1971, has occasioned substantial litigation. After the judgment was affirmed in the courts of this state, the Supreme Court of the United States denied *certiorari*(51 AD2d 891, *affd*42 NY2d 421, *cert denied*434 US 987). During the later 1970’s, defendant commenced a civil rights suit in federal court for the Southern District of New York against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the New York City Police Department, and other parties. As a result, substantial documentation was disclosed to defendant. Certain of these documents relate to the shootings for which defendant was convicted. On April 18, 1988, defendant moved in New York County Supreme Court, pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, alleging that certain of these documents were undisclosed *Rosario*materials. The motion court denied the motion under constraint of *People v Howard*(127 AD2d 109) on the basis that defendant had raised these issues in a collateral proceeding, rather than by direct appeal from judgment.

This court (Joseph P. Sullivan, J.) granted leave on March 18, 1989. We reversed to the extent of determining that *People v Howard (supra)*would not require denial of defendant’s motion. We remanded for consideration of whether the purported *Rosario*materials were the duplicative equivalents of materials made available to defendant during trial (158 AD2d 312). The Court of Appeals denied leave to the People (75 NY2d 968 [Fritz W. Alexander, II, J.]).

Subsequently, the People conceded that certain of the undisclosed materials were not duplicative equivalents. On this basis, the motion court vacated the judgment on the authority of *People v Ranghelle*(69 NY2d 56), which found nondisclosure of *Rosario*materials to constitute *per se*reversible error. The People presently appeal that order.

Although we note that the People maintain that the subject materials were neither material nor prejudicial, the rulings in *People v Novoa*(70 NY2d 490), and *People v Jones*(70 NY2d 547), clearly remove any consideration of materiality or prejudice from our review. Since vacatur of judgment is mandated, we need not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Gilberto Osorio, Appellant, v Charles Scully, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered September 21, 1989, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination dated June 6, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Generally, claims which were or could have been reviewed on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction are not subject to review by habeas corpus *(see, People ex rel. Wise v Scully,*163 AD2d 444; *Matter of Williams v Scully,*135 AD2d 721; *People ex rel. Phifer v Scully,*107 AD2d 729). Nor do the facts of this case indicate a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights such as to warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure *(cf., Stone v Powell,*428 US 465; *People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7288
KEITH EARL GODWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT H. ANDERSON, III, Assistant Attorney General; E. EVERETT BAGNELL, Judge; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Judge, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-958) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se. Maryann Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Godwin v. Anderson , No. CA-95-958 (E.D. Va. July 14, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Temple, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered on August 14, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 7 Vi to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT
23.2









HANSEN,BARNETT& MAXWELL,
    P.C.A
      Professional CorporationCERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS5
      Triad Center, Suite 750Salt
      Lake City, UT 84180-1128Phone:
      (801) 532-2200Fax:
      (801) 532-7944www.hbmcpas.com


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors


BMB
Munai, Inc.





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 333-146831) of BMB Munai, Inc. of our report dated June 23, 2010,
including our report dated June 23, 2010 regarding the effectiveness of BMB
Munai, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2010,
relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended March 31, 2010.





/s/ Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell,
P.C.


HANSEN, BARNETT & MAXWELL,
P.C.





Salt
      Lake City, Utah


June
      23, 2010
#### IBERIA, LINEAS AEREAS de ESPANA, S. A., Appellant, v. Carrie Grace GERHARDT, by her father and next friend, Alan R. Gerhardt, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 7, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JARON BRIMAGE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 289 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
1 C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Angeleta Rodriguez v. Roger Janki
Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 0 19

- CV

Trial court case number: 1 1 20 842

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On A ugust 13, 2019, we dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution after

a ppellant, Angeleta Ro driguez

, failed to file a brief

. See Rodriguez v

. Janki , No. 01

- 19

- 00019

- CV, 2019 WL 3783334 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13, 2019, no pet. h.). Appellant has now filed motions seeking an order to “get case” to “mediation court” and other unspecified relief

. A ppellant ’ s motion s are dismissed as moot

. It is so ORDE RED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ August 29, 2019

___
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DALE MCKINLEY MONTFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,

District Judge. (CR-04-45; CA-05-37-4)

Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale McKinley Montford, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick,

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dale McKinley Montford seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See 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

Montford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
XRX-12.31.13-Ex10.e.27


EXHIBIT 10(e)(27)


	
											
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Name: Participant Name
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	Company Name: XEROX CORPORATION
	 

	Award Summary
	 
	 
	Plan Name: Performance Share
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Awarded < enter # of shares> PS of XRX Stock on <enter date>
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Participant
	 
	<name>
	 
	Vesting Schedule
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Stock Symbol
	 
	XRX
	 
	Vest
Date
	Target
	Performance 
Start Date
	Performance 
End Date
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	<vesting date>
	<# of shares>
	<enter start date>
	<enter end date>
	 

	Award Date
	 
	<date>
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Awarded
	 
	< # of shares>
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Award Type
	 
	PSS
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Award Description
	 
	Performance Shares
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 6, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 30, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory                           ( print page 45289)                        Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 464 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-218, CP2018-300.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-19276 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P