alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00114-Z-BR

§

EVERETT WAYNE COPELIN, III (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

EVERETT WAYNE COPELIN, III (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th 

Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 4 of the 

Indictment. After cautioning and examining EVERETT WAYNE COPELIN, III (1) under oath concerning each of the 

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense 

charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore 

recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that EVERETT WAYNE COPELIN, III (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 

U.S.C. § 875(c) - INTERSTATE THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS and have sentence imposed accordingly. After 

being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: June 12, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00114-Z-BR Document 49 Filed 06/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 145
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Lieberman, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of World Health Energy Holdings, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The  registrant's other certifying  officer and I are  responsible  for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a.  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused  such disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting; and
 5. I have  disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal  control over financial reporting,  to the registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of the  registrant's  board of directors (or persons  performing  the equivalent functions):
 
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b. any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 24, 2010
 
 /s/David Lieberman


David Lieberman
 Chief Accounting Officer
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 23-10718

___________ 

Jennifer VanDerStok; Michael G. Andren; Tactical 

Machining, L.L.C., a limited liability company; Firearms Policy 

Coalition, Incorporated, a nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Incorporated, doing 

business as 80 Percent Arms; Defense Distributed; Second 

Amendment Foundation, Incorporated; Not An L.L.C., 

doing business as JSD Supply; Polymer80, Incorporated,

Intervenor Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General; United States 

Department of Justice; Steven Dettelbach, in his official 

capacity as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,

Defendants—Appellants.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CV-691 

______________________________ 

Case: 23-10718 Document: 00516974324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 270 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5292
No. 23-10718

2

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Before Willett, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

Given the Government’s stated lack of opposition, 

IT IS ORDERED that Appellees’ motion for issuance of the 

mandate forthwith is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motion to issue 

its mandate if no petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is filed 

within seven days of the issuance of its order determining this motion is

DENIED as moot.

Case: 23-10718 Document: 00516974324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2023

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 270 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5293
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FNSI) for BRAC 95 Disposal and Reuse of East Fort Baker, 
California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public Law 101-510 (as amended), and the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of East Fort 
Baker, California.
    The Final EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the disposal 
and subsequent reuse of the 91-acre installation. Enactment of the 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area Act (Public Law 92-589) requiring 
that, when the Department of Defense determined that it no longer had a 
need for East Fort Baker, the property would transfer to the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Disposal of East Fort 
Baker to the Secretary of the Interior will allow the property to be 
reused in accordance with the National Park Service's Proposed Plan. 
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Park 
Service prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) that 
examined and analyzed the environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan 
and its alternatives. This final EIS has been incorporated by reference 
into the Army's disposal and reuse EA. The only other alternative 
examined by the Army was the no action alternative. Under the no action 
alternative, the Army would not dispose of property, but would maintain 
it in a caretaker status for an indefinite period. Based on the 
environmental analysis documented in the EA, the Army has determined 
that the proposed disposal action would have no significant direct, 
indirect or cumulative impact on the natural or human environment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the EA may be obtained by writing to Mr. Jerry 
Fuentes, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Environmental 
Resources Branch, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jerry Fuentes at (916) 557-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Intent (NOI) declaring the 
Army's intent to prepare an EA for the closure of East Fort Baker was 
published in the Federal Register on September 22, 1995 (60 FR 49264).
    The Final EA and FNSI are available for review at the Marin County 
Free Library, Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, CA 94903 and the 
Sausalito Public Library, 420 Litho, Sausalito, CA 94965.

    Dated: November 20, 2000.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health), OASA (I&E).
[FR Doc. 00-30180 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 318

To designate the month of April 1994 as ‘‘Civil War History Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1994

Mr. SHAW introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the month of April 1994 as ‘‘Civil War History

Month’’.

Whereas the period of American history known as the ‘‘Civil

War’’ is universally recognized as one of the most significant landmark eras in our Nation’s heritage;

Whereas the continuous growth of the public’s awareness of

and interest in the Civil War period remains an integral

part of America’s cultural heritage;

Whereas the study, preservation, and interpretation of literature and sites associated with this period are

imbedded in the educational and cultural heritage of our

country;
2

•HJ 318 IH

Whereas the beginning of the Civil War occurred in April of

1861 with the firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston,

South Carolina, and the effective ending of the Civil War

occurred in April of 1865 with the surrender of the Army

of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, Virginia, making

April the most important month of the year in Civil War

history; and

Whereas the heritage of the Civil War deserves the attention

and respect of all individuals in the United States: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That April of 1994 is designated as ‘‘Civil War History

4 Month’’, and the President is authorized and requested

5 to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the

6 United States to observe the month with appropriate cere7 monies and activities.

Æ
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3857 — SITA/Flughafen Düsseldorf/FDITG)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 172/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005 p. 32.

----
Government’s Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RAYNALDO RIVERA ORTIZ JR.

NO. 3:22-CR-00378-N

GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER EVIDENCE

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 902(11)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11), the United States of America (the 

government) gives notice of its intent to offer the following business records by affidavit, 

certificate, and/or declaration of the respective institution’s custodian of records, as 

described and set forth below:

Description of business 

records

Description of affidavit, 

certificate, or declaration

Location of affidavit in 

government discovery; 

location of respective 

business records

Business records, 

Southwestern Institute 

of Forensic Science

(SWIFS), Case No. 22-

IFS-12341 (5 pages)

Jeffrey Barnard, December 19, 

2023

GOV_00043621; 

GOV_00043622 -

GOV_00043626

Business records, 

SWIFS, Case No. 22-

IFS-12756-(5 pages)

Jeffrey Barnard, December 19, 

2023

GOV_00043627; 

GOV_00043628 -

GOV_00043632

Business records, 

SWIFS, Case No. 22-

IFS-17336 (1 page)

Jeffrey Barnard, December 19, 

2023

GOV_000043633; 

GOV_000043634

Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 64 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 687
Government’s Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence - Page 2

The records and their respective certifications have been made available to the defendant. 

The records establish the chain of custody for the receipt, testing, and destruction of item 

nos. 005-001, 005-002, and 005-003 in SWIFS case no. 22-IFS-12341; the receipt, 

testing, and release of item no. 001-009 in SWIFS case no. 22-IFS-12756; and the 

receipt, testing, and release of item no. 001-001 in SWIFS case no. 22-IFS-17336. 

Because the government has satisfied the requirements of Rule 902(11), the government 

respectfully requests that the Court reject any hearsay and/or authentication objections to 

the records. 

Respectfully submitted,

LEIGHA SIMONTON

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ John J. de la Garza III . 

John J. de la Garza III

Texas Bar No. 007964555

Assistant United States Attorney

1100 Commerce Street, Room 300

Dallas, Texas 75242-1699

Telephone: 214-659-8682

Email john.delagarza@usdoj.gov

Certificate Of Service

I certify that a copy of this pleading was served on counsel for the defendant via 

ECF on the 4th day of March 2024.

s/ John J. de la Garza III . 

John J. de la Garza III

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 64 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 688
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 21, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00502-CV

TARGET CORPORATION, Appellant

V.

JOHN KO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-04853

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Brown

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(d) and Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 28.3, Target Corporation has filed a petition for permissive interlocutory 

appeal. We may accept an interlocutory appeal if: (1) the order being appealed involves a 

controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; 

and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of 

the litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2013). 

Target moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not served with process 

until more than two months after the statute of limitations had run. John Ko responded that his 

counsel requested issuance of citation on the same date the petition was filed. His counsel 

acknowledged that a “clerical oversight resulted in a failure to calendar a follow-up date to 

determine the status of counsel’s request for citation.” The trial court denied Target’s motion. 
–2–

In its petition for permissive appeal, Target contends the controlling question of law is 

whether attorney error in failing to timely serve a defendant constitutes a lack of due diligence as 

a matter of law. The law, however, is well settled that attorney error does not constitute due 

diligence as a matter of law. See Parsons v. Turley, 109 S.W.3d 804, 808-09 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2003, pet. denied). The fact that the trial court may have erred in not granting summary 

judgment is not a basis for a permissive appeal. See King-A Corp. v. Wehling, No. 13-13-00100-

CV, 2013 WL 1092209 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi March 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(denying permission to appeal involving same issue).

Accordingly, we conclude no substantial difference of opinion exists regarding the 

controlling question of law in this case, deny the petition, and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d)(1); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

140502F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TARGET CORPORATION, Appellant

No. 05-14-00502-CV V.

JOHN KO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-04853.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers, 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee JOHN KO recover his costs of this appeal from appellant 

TARGET CORPORATION.

Judgment entered this 21st day of July, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,031
<SECURITIES>                                    56,340
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,862
<PP&E>                                           2,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                     405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,202
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Monday, June 22, 2015 Meeting June 22, 2015
10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Conference Center Room 1W.1001
U.S. Department of Justice
Two Constitution Square
145 N Street NE
Washington, DC 20002

AgendaMeeting SummaryMeeting Attendance

June 22, 2015 Meeting Materials

**Presenters Bios**

Michael Thompson
	Randy Turner
	Susan Burke
	John Tilley**Handouts**

Executive SummaryCloser to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the Texas Juvenile Justice Reforms
	Kentucky's Smart Probation: Hope for High Risk/High Need Defendants
	Mandatory Reentry SupervisionEvaluating the Kentucky Experience
	Tarrant County Juvenile ServicesAssessment of Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
	Utah's Declining Juvenile Justice Population**PowerPoint Presentation**

Justice Center
	The Council of State Governments
	Collaborative Approaches to Public SafetyCloser to Home
	A Review of Findings
	Michael Thompson, Director
	June 22, 2015
  
Date Published: June 22, 2015
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov