alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Navy

**– Marine Corps**  **Court of Criminal Appeals**

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Bradley D
. DOTSON Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Apprentice (E

- 2 ) , U.S. Navy Appellant

_________________________ 

### No. 201 8 002 7 3

______________________ ___ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided : 25 January 2019

.

_________________________ __ Military Judges: Commander Jonathan T. Stephens, JAGC, USN (arraignment); Captain Aaron C. Rugh, JAGC, USN (trial). Approved Sentence : C onfinement for six months and a bad

- conduct discharge

. 1 Sentence adjudged 12 June 2018 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Base San Diego, California consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Jacqueline M. Leo nard , JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

1 The Convening Authority suspended co nfinement in excess of six months pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Dotson , No. 201 800273

2 This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________ Before HUTCHISON, LAWRENCE , and ELLINGTON , Appel late Military Ju dges
After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantia l rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). However, we note that the court

- martial order (CMO) does not accurately reflect the appellant’s pleas. Although we find no prejudice from this scrivener’s error , the appellant is entitled to h ave court

- martial records that correctly reflect the c ontent of his proceeding. United States v. Crumpley , 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, the convening authority shall issue a supplemental CMO refle cting that the appellant pleaded Not Guilty to Specification 2 of Charge III. T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Co urt
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1492 

AN ACT 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage 

available for inclusion in, the Yucca House National 

Monument. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1492 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Yucca House National 

3 Monument Expansion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) NATIONAL MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘Na7 tional Monument’’ means the Yucca House National 

8 Monument in Cortez, Colorado, established by Presi9 dential Proclamation 1549. 

10 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en11 titled ‘‘Yucca House National Monument Proposed 

12 Boundary Addition’’, numbered 318/105,085A, and 

13 dated February 27, 2019. 

14 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

15 the Secretary of the Interior. 

16 SEC. 3. YUCCA HOUSE NATIONAL MONUMENT LAND ACQUI17 SITION. 

18 (a) ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may acquire by do19 nation the approximately 160 acres of land and any inter20 ests in the land that is identified on the map. 

21 (b) BOUNDARY.—On the acquisition of the land au22 thorized under subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust 

23 the boundaries of the National Monument to include the 

24 acquired land. 
3 

•HR 1492 EH

1 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The land and any interests in 

2 land acquired under subsection (a) shall be administered 

3 as part of the National Monument. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1492 

AN ACT 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum 

House National Monument. acreage available for inclusion in, the Yucca
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 881 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 881

   To prohibit certain nutrition rules with respect to foods sold at 
                        schools as a fundraiser.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2015

Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. 
  Jones, Mr. Nugent, and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit certain nutrition rules with respect to foods sold at 
                        schools as a fundraiser.

    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 ``Bringing Awareness and Knowledge to 
Exempt Schools Against Legislative Encroachment Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN RULES.

    The Secretary of Agriculture shall not implement, administer, or 
enforce the rule entitled ``National School Lunch Program and School 
Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as 
Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010'' published by 
the Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register on June 28, 2013 
(78 Fed. Reg. 39068 et seq.), with respect to food sold as a fundraiser 
that takes place on the grounds of a school, including any requirements 
with respect to limiting the number of such fundraisers by State 
agencies or the Secretary of Agriculture.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00901-CR

EX PARTE Paul Edward NIMNICHT

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR9336

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 15, 2015.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81433-81434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26001]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-23-055]

Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: November 30, 2023 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

[[Page 81434]]

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Commission vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1658 (Preliminary) (Truck and 
Bus Tires from Thailand). The Commission currently is scheduled to 
complete and file its determinations on December 1, 2023; views of the 
Commission currently are scheduled to be completed and filed on 
December 8, 2023.
    5. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Review) 
(Softwood Lumber Products from Canada). The Commission currently is 
scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the 
Commission on December 20, 2023.
    6. Outstanding action jackets: none.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory 
Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
    The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, 
subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 
may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 20, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-26001 Filed 11-20-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00678-CR

NO. 03-14-00679-CR

Ex parte Leslie Parker Jones

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. D-1-DC-08-303025 & D-1-DC-08-303026,

THE HONORABLE DAVID CRAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Leslie Parker Jones has filed motions to dismiss these appeals. We grant

the motions and dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 17, 2015

Do Not Publish
FY2002 10K Exhibit 10.47




Exhibit 10.47





AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



 

This Amendment to the Executive Employment Agreement dated December 3, 2001
between Gottschalks Inc., a Delaware corporation (Company herein) and James Famalette (Employee
herein) is entered into effective December 1, 2001.



WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
met and have considered the performance of employee as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and as a result has agreed to changes in Employee's contract as set forth in this
Amendment; and



WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee unanimously recommended that the
Executive Employment Agreement with James Famalette be approved by the Board of Directors of the
corporation, and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors have unanimously approved the Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:



1.Article 2.2 Basic Term, is amended to reflect that the termination date
shall be July 1, 2004.



2.Pursuant to Article 3.1, the employee is receiving $560,000 per annum
as a base salary and the Committee has determined that the Base Salary shall remain at $560,000 per
annum.



3.Article 3.2 Incentive Bonus Plans, shall be amended to provide that
Employee shall have the ability to earn an annual bonus of 50% of Base Salary if specific goals and
objectives adopted by the Board are met, instead of the previous 30%.



4.Article 4.3 Change in Ownership, shall be amended to delete in its
entirety that hand printed addition denoted as part of the article by an asterisk, which reads,
"Notwithstanding the provisions in Article 4.3 above, in the event that the total capitalization of
the Company at the time that a change of control or sale occurs, is below eighty-five million
dollars, then employee will be restricted to twelve (12) months base salary instead of twenty-four
(24) as stated above if he is terminated as provided."



5.Article 3.6 Life Insurance, shall be amended to reflect that the dollar
amount of the Term Life Insurance Policy shall be a face value of one million dollars, instead of
equal to Employee's Base Salary.







6.Except as specifically set forth in this Second Amendment, the contract
of Employment dated June 25, 1999 and First Amendment dated June 26, 2001 are ratified and affirmed,
and all terms and conditions not amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and
effect.



EXECUTION of this Agreement is evidenced by the signatures below:



 

GOTTSCHALKS INC.



 

 

By:_/s/ Joe Levy

Joe Levy, Chairman of the Board



 

 

REVIEWED AND AGREED:



 

 /s/ James Famalette

James Famalette
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 Wireless Telecom Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Karabet Simonyan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                                               /s/ Karabet Simonyan
                                               --------------------
                                               Karabet Simonyan
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               July 30, 2004


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BARRY FRANCIS BELLVILLE,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00238-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 3

of Denton County Texas

(TC# CR-2012-07153-C)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
[No. 38012.

Department Two.

June 24, 1965.]

#### Jack Nettleton, *Respondent,*v. Sedy Bros. Inc., Appellant.*

*Charles B. Welsh,*for appellant.

*A. D. Gillies*and *John H. Kirkwood,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 403 P.2d 671.

Per Curiam.

We have examined the record and the statement of facts in this case. The record is bare of any facts under the warranty or sale by description provisions of the Uniform Sales Act, RCW 63.04-.130 or 63.04.150.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that respondent made affirmations or promises to appellant as to the operation of the machine, nor that this was a sale by description. In fact, it was the appellant who provided respondent with a description of the particular machine appellant ordered built.

There was substantial competent evidence upon which the trial court could base its decision. This court will not substitute its findings for that of the trial court. *Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.,*54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959).

Judgment affirmed.
#### PETERS GRAZING ASSOCIATION, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Thomas LEGERSKI, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4497.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 3, 1976.

ORDER DENYING REHEARING

GUTHRIE, Chief Justice.

Appellant herein having filed a petition for rehearing and the court having examined the same and being advised in the premises, and it appearing to a majority of the court that said petition should be denied,

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing herein filed be and the same is hereby denied.

Justice McCLINTOCK,

with whom Chief Justice GUTHRIE joins,

would grant the petition for rehearing upon the following grounds:

A majority of the court have joined to deny the petition for rehearing. I presume that this is done on the basis of the rule which I recognize to be well established, that a petition for rehearing is not to be used to reargue matters which have been fully presented to the court upon the original presentation. I agree with that rule, and have followed it in the past even though I dissented from the original viewpoint of the court. However, I feel in this case that the majority opinion does dispose of the appeal on the basis of third-party beneficiary contracts, and I agree with the statement in Chief Justice Guthrie’s dissenting opinion, 544 P.2d 449, 459, that this question was not raised by the pleadings or argued in the briefs. The most that I can find in the appellee’s brief submitted to this court is a reference to the fact that consideration may move from a third party, but the disposition of the case in the trial court was definitely based upon a “contract” reciting services to the defendant by the plaintiff. The application for rehearing, then, is not an attempt to reiterate old and rejected arguments but a request to be heard on a point which the appellant never had an opportunity to argue.

Under these circumstances I feel that the petition for rehearing should have been allowed.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE XIX

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE

Article 189

1.   To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end, it may promote joint initiatives, support research and technological development and coordinate the efforts needed for the exploration and exploitation of space.

2.   To contribute to attaining the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the necessary measures, which may take the form of a European space programme, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

3.   The Union shall establish any appropriate relations with the European Space Agency.

4.   This Article shall be without prejudice to the other provisions of this Title.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Cause No 01-14-00027-CV, Juan Alaniz, et al. v. The O’Quinn Law Firm, John M. O’Quinn & 

Assoc., LLP, The Estate of John M. O’Quinn, Deceased, and Abel Manji

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, trial court cause 

number 392,274-414, the Hon. Mike Wood, presiding.

On April 14, 2015, the parties appeared for oral argument. The panel addressed the issue 

of the basis for appellate jurisdiction in this case and the propriety of the severance order 

purporting to make the trial court’s order on the partial motions for summary judgment final and 

appealable. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 41; Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793

S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. 1990). The panel now requests supplemental briefing on those issues. It 

is ordered that the supplemental briefing of both parties is due ten days from the date of this 

order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually 

Date: April 17, 2015
# dep

west virginia department of environmental protection Division ofAir Quality 601 57lh Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0475 Fax: (304) 926-0479

Ms. CristinaFernandez Air ProtectionDivision U.S. EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street (3AP30) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 June 24, 2013 Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor Randy C. Huffinan, Cabinet Secretary www.dep.wv.gov


### RECEIVED 

## JUL -9 2013 Division Director (3APOO)

Re: Request to Use the 2008 NEI Ammonia and VOC Datato Supplement Prior Submittals to Satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 172(c)(3) Emissions Inventory Requirements for Three West Virginia

### PM 25 Nonattainment Areas
Dear Ms. Fernandez: The Division ofAir Quality (DAQ) has previously submitted three redesignation requests/maintenance plans to EPA, which were also intended to satisfy the CAA §172(c)(3) requirements for comprehensive emissions inventories. The affected plans are for: the 1997 Wheeling, the 2006 Charleston, and the 2006 Weirton PM2

_ 5 nonattainment areas. The plans were submittedto EPA onMarch 8, 2012; December 6, 2012; and June 8, 2012, respectively. Upon preliminary review, EPA found all three plans to be administratively and technically complete but did nottake regulatory action onthese State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The SIP inventories contained data for direct 

### PM 25, as well as the precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02). However, the precursors ammonia and volatile organic compounds (VOC) were omitted. DAQ has worked with EPA Region 3 senior staffto determine how to address this recently discovered deficiency. Therefore, we are requesting that EPA use dataDAQ has previously certified and submitted to the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) to supplement its prior submittals to satisfy the requirements ofCAA 

### §172(c)(3) for all three plans referenced above. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please contact me via email: william.f.durham@wv.gov orbyphone at 304.926.0499 x1242. 

## RECEIVED 

## JUL 092013

3AP30 Sincerely,

William F. Durham, Deputy Director Division ofAir Quality


### Promoting a healthy environment.
# C_2016203EN.01001401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/14

---

Article 21

If the proprietor does not propose that the matter be referred to the Arbitration Committee, the Commission may call upon the Member State concerned or its appropriate authorities to grant the licence or cause it to be granted.

If, having heard the proprietor's case, the Member State, or its appropriate authorities, considers that the conditions of Article 17 have not been complied with, it shall notify the Commission of its refusal to grant the licence or to cause it to be granted.

If it refuses to grant the licence or to cause it to be granted, or if, within four months of the date of the request, no information is forthcoming with regard to the granting of the licence, the Commission shall have two months in which to bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The proprietor must be heard in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

If the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union establishes that the conditions of Article 17 have been complied with, the Member State concerned, or its appropriate authorities, shall take such measures as enforcement of that judgment may require.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection
with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2022 (the “Report”), I, John A Hardy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Dated: November 10, 2022





|EQUUS TOTAL RETURN, INC.
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ John A. Hardy       
|John A. Hardy           
|Chief Executive Officer