alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC JUl 2 8 2016 

H NG DOCKET 

In the matter of: 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. CP-Judge Douglas M. Rawald 

Case No. 2015WA910115 d-u tt.,- 4a,o 

AERO TECH, LLC. 

) 

) 

________________) 

JOINT REPORT 

COMES NOW, the parties, by and through their undersigned Attorneys of record 

in this proceeding and pursuant to the Initial Procedural Order dated May 11, 2016, 

jointly submit the following proposed litigation schedule. 

1. The principals of the Respondent, AERO TECH, LLC. are out of the continental 

United States and will be working in the State of Alaska until roughly November 

28, 2016. While some initial discovery can be completed between the parties, 

March 3, 2017 should be the deadline for completion of Discovery by each party 

which would include written Discovery as well as depositions. 

2. Any motions regarding Discovery issues shall be filed no later than March 3, 

2017. Any pretrial motion shall be filed no later than March 17, 2017. The parties 

would propose a telephonic hearing on any and all filed motions be held on April 

5, 2017. 

3. The parties would propose the following dates for a hearing: 

May 1, 2017 through May 19, 2017 with the exceptions of May 2"d and May 161

h. 

1 
Respectfully Submitted: 

Ste en oerr, Esq. 

Respond ents-ijSI,IIlSeJ.-.-

Doerr & Knudson, P.A. 

212W. First Street 

Portales, NM 88130 

(T) 575-359-1289 

(F) 575-359-1898 

Kyle Lomazow, 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Attn. Patricia L. Baysinger 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 West 71

h Avenue Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was 

served on thiseK5faay of J?'t-[, 2016, by mailing to the following: 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-31 0) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Kyle Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Attn. Patricia L. Baysinger 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 West ih Avenue Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

2
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 51

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee

on Printing and the Joint Committee on the Library.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Mr. MCCONNELL, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported

the following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

MARCH 2, 1999

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the

Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee

on the Library.

1 Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected members of the following joint

3 committees of Congress:

4 JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING: Mitch McConnell,

5 Thad Cochran, Don Nickles, Dianne Feinstein, and Daniel

6 K. Inouye.
2

SRES 51 ATS

1 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY: Ted Stevens,

2 Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Christopher J. Dodd,

3 and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ThomasJ. Tossavainen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /S/ THOMAS J. TOSSAVAINEN |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Thomas  J. Tossavainen    |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer  |   |
| August 5, 2008       |   |

 

----
Chrisondath Badall

Pack One Unit # 1329319

2400 Wallace Pack Rd.

Navasota,Tx. 77869

March 9th/2015

iif2ir-oi

Abel Acosta,Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O.Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin,Tx. 78711

RE: Badall/Chrisondath

CCA No.WR-78,218-01

Trial Court Case No. CR24834-A

Dear Mr.Acosta/

Please find this in regards to the above-mentioned reference

matter.

On Feb.19th,2015, I sent your office a letter requesting an update

status on my 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus.Today/I have received your

reply dated Feb.24th,2015, stating among things,"The status is:

Dismissed—Non Compliant on August 22,2012.Specifically/facts not set

out on the prescribed form."

There's seems to be a misunderstanding and/or mistake,insofar as,

my 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus could not have been dismissed on Aug.

22,2012... When the Court Of Criminal Appeals had ordered the Trial

Court to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing concerning the allegation(s)

submitted in my 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus.This Hearing was not

conducted until June 11,2013,and the Trial Court did not enter its

Findinds of Fact and Conclusions until Sept.13,2013.

Hopefully,there is simply an oversight in the records,and this

matter can now be emended.All I am seeking is the following:
1.) What is the updated status of my 11.07 Writ Habeas Corpus filed on

April 18th,2012;

2.) What is the updated status of the Evidentiary Hearing conducted by

the Trial Court on June 11, 2013,and Trial Courts Findings of Facts

and Conclusions of Law entered on Sept.13,2013;and

3.) Can you please send me one copy of the docket Sheet regarding all

filings;proceedings,and orders concerning the above-mentioned

referenced matter?

I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your reply.Thank you

for your time and assistance with this matter.

lly

d^JU?

adall
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 of
Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert K. Moskovitz,
Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner 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:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 16, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert K. Moskovitz                              
|                        |  |  |  | Name: Robert K. Moskovitz                            
|                        |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
#### Bobby ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. F-82-502.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 9, 1984.

Mac Olyer, Oyler & Bane, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., John 0. Walton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CORNISH, Judge:

Bobby Anderson was convicted of Robbery by Force and Fear, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, and was sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. Appellant makes several assignments of error, one of which we find dictates reversal of the judgment. It alone will be addressed.

At the close of the State’s case in chief, appellant demurred on several grounds and moved for an instructed verdict of acquittal. His motion was denied. One ground asserted was that the State had failed to prove venue. He made this assignment again in his motion for new trial, and has properly preserved it. *Morris v. State,*363 P.2d 377 (Okl.Cr.1961).

This Court’s opinion in *Morris*provides a synthesis of our caselaw enforcing the right to be tried in the county where the offense occurred as granted by Article II, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. We there noted the rule that while venue may be proven by circumstantial evidence, it must be proven by the State.

In the present case, the evidence suggests that the crimes occurred at the *1375victim’s home in “Canadian Shores”. This, plus evidence that the crimes were investigated by a Pittsburg County Sheriffs deputy, are the only indications of venue.

We have held that we will take judicial notice of the boundaries of the counties of the State, and geographical location of cities and towns within the State. *Id.,*at 379, citing *Dodson v. State,*30 Okl.Cr. 135, 235 P. 268 (1925). But, we have refused to judicially notice streets and buildings when there’s no evidence as to the town or city in which they are located. *Id.*citing *Henson v. State,*317 P.2d 732 (Okl.Cr.1957) and *Thompson v. State,*89 Okl.Cr. 383, 208 P.2d 584 (1949). The record in the present case does not provide evidence of what Canadian Shores is, in what city or town it is located, its location in reference to any geographically recognizable point, or whether it is in Pittsburg County. Even on appeal, the State has failed to support its argument that venue was proven by giving the Court this necessary information. The State failed to prove venue, and the trial court should have sustained appellant’s demurrer on this ground.

The judgment is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

BUSSEY, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.
#### Jean L’ACQUARIUS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Don H. HAMPTON, District Judge 19th Judicial District; and Jan Eric Cartwright, Attorney General and Larry Stuart, District Attorney, Osage County, Respondents.

No. 57739.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 9, 1982.

As Corrected April 5, 1982.

*1144Rodney McDaniel, Jean L’Acquarius, pro se.

Don H. Hampton, Pawhuska, Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Larry Stuart, Dist. Atty., Pawhuska, pro se.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, inmate of the Department of Corrections, together with four other inmates, filed a singular pro se petition in the District Court of Osage County seeking ouster of various officials and employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections at the Hominy facility. Allegations were made by the inmates that the officials and employees should be removed from office because of alleged maladministration and alleged criminal conduct.

The instant original action requests this Court assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus requiring respondent District Judge to disqualify himself; requiring both the Attorney General and the District Attorney to prosecute the inmate’s pro se action, or alternatively, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the ouster petition.

Proceedings to remove public officials and officers may be had only in the following manner: (1) Impeachment under the provisions of Art. VIII, § 1, Okla. Const., 51 O.S.1971, § 51 et seq.; (2) Accusation for removal from office presented by a grand jury pursuant to 22 O.S.1971, § 1181 et seq., (3) In case of a county or township officer, an accusation presented by the county commissioners, 22 O.S.1971, § 1194; and (4) Proceedings instituted by the Attorney General under the provisions, of 51 O.S.1971, § 91 et seq., at the direction of the Governor or upon notice in writing verified by five or more reputable citizens of the county. Inmates incarcerated in state penal institutions for convictions of felonies are not “reputable citizens of the county” within the meaning of 51 O.S.1971, § 94.

Aside from Art. VII-A, Okla.Const. and 51 O.S.1981, § 24.1, the above cited constitutional and statutory provisions are exclusive. The district court is without jurisdiction to entertain an ouster action on petition filed in the district court by private citizens. *Alberty, et al. v. Parks, Dist. Judge,*128 Okl. 178, 261 P. 940 (1928).

Therefore, we refuse to assume original jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.
#### Carl Thalheim as Surveying Partner, &c., Appellant, v. Camp Phosphate Company, Appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion county; William S. Bullock, Judge.

*John G. Reardon,*for Appellant.

*R. L. Anderson,*for Appellee.

*421The bill in this canse was filed by the appellee against the appellant. There was decree for the complainant, and the defendant appeals. Dismissed by the clerk on praecipe of counsel for-the appellant, under authority of Rule 24.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XB134


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Golden 
King Crab Price Formula Committee is meeting in Seattle, WA.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 26-27, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Pacific Seafood Processing 
Association, 1900 W. Emerson Place, Suite 205, Seattle, WA.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Fina, Council staff; telephone: 
(907) 271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee is meeting concerning the 
arbitration system that is part of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
crab rationalization program. The Committee will give specific 
attention to the development of the price formula for golden king crab 
under the arbitration system. Additional information is posted on the 
Council Web site: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 
intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 
working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
William D. Chappell
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8479 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
391 A.2d 693

#### Commonwealth v. Moser, Appellant.

Argued March 13,1978.

David K. James, III, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; No appearance entered nor brief submitted for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The verdict of guilty is affirmed and the case is remanded for resentencing. At the sentencing, appellant is to receive a sentence which specifies both a minimum and maximum as required by the Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1356(b), added December 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, No. 345, § 1, eff. in 90 days; 18 Pa.C.S. § 1356(b), (Supp.1977). See, *Commonwealth v. Marshall,*254 Pa.Super. 275, 385 A.2d 1017 (1978).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40597 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MIGUEL ORTIZ HINOJO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 1133

- 1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Miguel Ortiz Hinojo appeals the 30

- month within

- guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. On appeal, Ortiz Hinojo argues that the district court erred by failing to award him an additional one

- level reduction for acceptance of responsibility p ursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) , because the additional reduction cannot be withheld based on a defendant’s refusal to waive his

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 28, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40597 Document: 00512749405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2014No. 13

- 40597 appellate rights . The Government concedes error in the district court’s failure to award the additional one

- level reduction but argu es that the error was harmless. Amendment 775 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which became effective November 1, 2013, provides that t he G overnment should not withhold the additional one

- level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) based on interests not identified in the guideline, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive the right to appeal. U.S.S.G. Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 775, a t 43

- 46 (2013). In United States v. Villegas Palacios , __ F.3d __, No. 13

- 40153, 2014 WL 2119096, at *1 (5th Cir. May 21, 2014), we applied Amendment 775 to a case on direct appeal in which the error was preserved and the Government conceded error

. In light of the amend ment to § 3E1.1, the holding in Villegas Palacios , and the Government’s concession of error in the instant case , the district court’s refusal to award Ortiz Hinojo the additional one

- level for acceptance of responsibility was procedural e rror. See Villegas Palacios , 2014 WL 2119096, 1. The Government has not shown that this error was harmless. See United States v. Delgado

- Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 752

- 53 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Ortiz Hinojo’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REM ANDED to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

2 Case: 13-40597 Document: 00512749405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2014
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
WATERBLASTING, LLC, Appellant

v.

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

, Intervenor

______________________

2019

- 2423

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018

- 00504.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

A NDREW D. L OCKTON , McHale & Slavin, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, argued for appellant. Also represented by E DWARD F. M C H ALE

.

M AI

- T RANG D UC D ANG

, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by T HOMAS W. Case: 19-2423 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2020K RAUSE

, F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

, M EREDITH H OPE S CHOENFELD

.

__________________ ____

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge

, B RYSON and
S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 6, 2020
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-2423 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2020
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 of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert J. Halloran, Jr., President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 8, 2008



/s/    Robert J. Halloran, Jr.Robert J. Halloran, Jr. President and Treasurer
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of SI Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by this Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Rheo A. BrouillardRheo A. BrouillardPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 13, 2008By:

/s/ Brian J. HullBrian J. HullExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2008