alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SI 0-100405-001 

GreaterBassier 

Economic Development Foundation 

710 Benton Rd,. Bossier Cily. I. A 71111 -3705 

(318) 742-6043 F AX (3) 8) 742-6044 

i.Ti'•,"..-•- ••:• 

VICE CHAIW.1AN 

iWMEC'.AiE PAS' CHAlPN 

i.\iCJU\'i D.vtCIO^J 

tjovicifi '(toCKy' Roc'<f'l 

loriiDiy 6c-.>;.:.!-

\Vo,-r-Oa..-. 

!<•.:::• ••: rcico-,-;^ . 

lOlti GlOSi 

Pen,y M;..t)Cxii>.i 

Jcr>r, Micna-ji Moo^o 

Don Updogro'f 

E-x-orf:cio 

r.'ciyo; lO'^^'V Work^f 

Lyni'' Asjitin 

March 25, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. Lallood 

Secretary 

U. S. Depiirtnient of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE ; -;-

Washington, DC 20590 Hi 

Re; Docket DO'r-OS'1-2010-** 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

'ITiank you for the opportunity to express our support for the application for 

anlitrust immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American 

Airlines and Japan Airline. ITie proposed alliance between these two airlines is 

vital for oneworld to compete eflectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliance. 

This increased inter-alliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the 

Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S.- Japan Open Skies, 

then by serving as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to 

approve this application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to 

work closely together to deliver highly competitive air transportation services. 

Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have a positive impact on air travel by 

olTering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to 

ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three competitive air 

alliance to choose from. 

We urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely. 

David R, Rockett, Jr., Executive Director 

e-mail: rocketi </ ghcdf.org 

DDR/jm 

ce: Bill Cooksey 

VVEBSITF;, www.rjbodf ory
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136691 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136691 

 COA: 284030 

Calhoun CC: 00-002897-FC 

RICKY MCCLINTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2008 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). 

d1117 

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 25, 2008 

 Clerk
...Georgia.pacific 


Georgia-Pacific Corporation lei 9/8683767/ 

4901 Chal1dler Road far 9186823032 

Mllskogee, OK 74403-4909 

FedEx Tracking: 8604 6996 6960 

March 30, 2007 

Phillip Fielder 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Division 

707 N. Robinson 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 

Re: Technical Report for Best Available Retrofit Technology Modeling: Muskogee Mill 

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP "GP" is pleased to submit this Technical Report for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) for our facility in Muskogee, Oklahoma. BART is required for any eligible source that "emits 

any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in any 

mandatory Class I federal area. Our air quality analysis following the approved modeling protocol indicates that our 

BART emission units collectively do not cause an impact that may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment. We are also submitting the appropriate administrative forms to request a minor permit 

modification to implement the proposed emission rate changes. 

As agreed upon earlier, CDs containing extensive modeling data will be sent directly from our Atlanta office. We 

look forward to addressing any questions or concerns you have with this report. Please contact Stephen Landers at 

(918) 684-4859 or Mark Aguilar at (404) 652-4293; mjaguila@gapac.com with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

tY~ Operating Vice President - Muskogee Mill 

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP 

Cc: 

Scott Matchett, GP Atlanta 

Mark Aguilar, GP Atlanta 

Enclosure: Report lind Administrative Forms
#### Herbert Marrero, Plaintiff, *v.*Olga Marrero, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

February 13, 1959.

*Martin Gallen*and *Seymour Horowitz*for plaintiff.

*Marjorie G. Zahn*for defendant.

Morris E. Spector, J.

The parties are husband and wife and have two issue by the marriage in question.

The husband brings this action for annulment upon the ground that his wife had entered into this marriage ceremony before a decree for divorce in her prior marriage had become final and while her former husband was alive.

I am of the opinion that the case of *Landsman*v. *Landsman*(302 N. Y. 45) is controlling in this situation. It is upon all fours with the case at bar. In fact, the *Landsman*case charged the petitioner with fraud with respect to the effectiveness of the interlocutory decree. In the case at bar there is no such allegation or proof. Marriages entered into under these circumstances are not voidable but void (Domestic Belations Law, § 6). Thus, even knowledge by petitioner, though denied, that the prior divorce decree had not become final, at the time of the attempted marriage, could not be raised as a defehse or estoppel, since the attempted marriage was void *ab initio.*

*1000The defendant seeks to impose the discretionary powers of the court under section 1134 of the Civil Practice Act, citing the cases of *Packer*v. *Packer*(6 A D 2d 464) and *Presbrey*v. *Presbrey*(6 A D 2d 477). These cases are distinguishable. In the *Packer*ease, the party who was estopped from obtaining an annulment under section 1134 was the party in the first marriage who soug’ht the annulment of the second marriage: In *Landsman*v. *Landsman (supra),*it was the party who participated only in the second marriage who succeeded in obtaining the annulment even though he came in with unclean hands. It is only the party to the first marriage who is estopped from obtaining equitable relief in regard to the subsequent marriage. *“*The distinction is sharply and expressly made on the basis of who is the seeker of affirmative relief ”. *(Packer*v. *Packer, supra,*p. 467.)

The court finds the aforesaid marriage is null and void and judgment may be entered annulling same.

It is agreed between the parties that the issue of this marriage be legitimatized and declared the legitimate children of both parties.

The court will grant no support for the defendant but will direct that the plaintiff pay the sum of $35 per week for the support of the aforesaid two children and shall have reasonable rights of visitation.

Settle decree and findings.
| 1.     | The forgoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q 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 foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                               |

|   |   /s/ Adam Langley                  |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Adam Langley, Senior Vice President           |   |
|   | Aspen Partners, Ltd.                          |   |
|   | Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC |   |

----
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Coates International, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form
10-KSB"), I, George J. Coates, Chief Executive Officer and the Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, 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, that the Company's Form 10-KSB
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Dated:  April 13, 2004      COATES INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

                                             By: /s/ George J. Coates
                                                -------------------------------

                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Principal Accounting Officer


See notes to financial statements                                             38
Exhibit 32.2

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 on
Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
David E. Snyder, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 10, 2010



/s/ David E. SnyderDavid E. Snyder Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4029** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SCOTTY TYRONE SIMMONS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen , Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00128

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant

. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Scotty Tyrone Simmons pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1), § 924(a)(2) (2006). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief p ursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the district court erred in sentencing Simmons to 104 months of imprisonment.

We review Simmons’ sen tence for reasonableness using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include improperly calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, sentencing using clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

sentence. Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. Only if we find a sentence procedurall y reasonable may we consider its substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, we discern no basis to conclude that Simmons’ within

- Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Powell , 65 0 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence3 within applicable Guidelines range to be reasonable), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011). Thus, this claim is without merit. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Simmons’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Simmons, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Simmons requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Simmon s. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,811
<SECURITIES>                                     1,073
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,360
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,212
<PP&E>                                          11,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,087
<OTHER-SE>                                    (49,345)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,693
<SALES>                                         17,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,395
<CGS>                                            2,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,803
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,847)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.53)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



The undersigned, Andrew Brodkey, the Chief Executive Officer, and Frank Garcia, the Chief Financial Officer, of Zoro Mining Corp. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | /s/ Andrew BrodkeyAndrew Brodkey
Chief Executive Officer, President and a director
Date:  March 22, 2011
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Frank GarciaFrank Garcia
Chief Financial Officer
Date:  March 22, 2011                              



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.02 MB)

Tags:DLA Installation Management Richmond, Smoking Area, Smoking Policy

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1542

In re: OWEN OD D MAN, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Charles Llewlyn , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 4:96

- cr
- 00053

- MR

- 1 )

Submitted : August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Owen Od d man , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Owen Oddman petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to resentence him to a lower term of imprisonment. We conclude that
Oddman is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic r emedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Moreover, manda mus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Oddman is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED