alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News Tag:
  Nov. 21, 2022 NGB Chief visits JFSC, Inducted into NDU Hall of Fame NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY HAMPTON ROADS —
                
                Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Daniel R. Hokanson visits the Joint Forces Staff College, is inducted into the National Defense University Hall of Fame, and speaks to the college about National Guard matters.
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 72 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 72

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
 respect to the compelling of testimony from a defendant in a criminal 
   case in open court, a restriction on the use of prior convictions 
except when they are an element of the crime charged, and the right of 
 a defendant in a criminal case to be informed of the evidence against 
                             the defendant.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

    Mr. Jacobs introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
 respect to the compelling of testimony from a defendant in a criminal 
   case in open court, a restriction on the use of prior convictions 
except when they are an element of the crime charged, and the right of 
 a defendant in a criminal case to be informed of the evidence against 
                             the defendant.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The fifth article of amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States is amended by inserting immediately after `nor shall 
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' the 
following: `except in open court; nor be confronted with prior criminal 
convictions except where they are an element of the crime charged'.
    ``Section 2. The sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States is amended by striking out `and to be informed of the 
nature and cause of the accusation' and inserting in lieu thereof `and 
to be informed of the nature, cause, and evidence of the 
accusation'.''.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Phoenix Gold International,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Keith A. Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Keith A. Peterson   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Keith A. Peterson       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | August 12, 2003         |

 

1

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60179 

Summary Calendar

 

JOE OSAREN,

Petitioner,

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A29 398 450)

________________________________________________________________

December 24, 1996

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joe Omorodion Osaren petitions this court to review the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying an application

for asylum and withholding of deportation. There is no error

relative to his argument that the BIA improperly required a

direct tie between the political conditions in Nigeria and his
2

individual situation. Osaren received a fair and full

opportunity to develop his claim of “extreme hardship” before the

Attorney General’s delegate. Ramos v. INS, 695 F.2d 181, 185-86

(5th Cir. 1983); Hernandez-Cordero, 819 F.2d at 562. Osaren’s

request that we order the BIA to change his voluntary departure

date is DENIED. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 1994).

The petition is DENIED.
Case 4:22-cr-00274-P Document 58 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 189
Case 4:22-cr-00274-P Document 58 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 190
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6370

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP FLEMING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (2:06-cr-00655-DCN-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Fleming appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Fleming, 

No. 2:06-cr-00655-DCN-1 (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 2010). We deny 

Fleming’s motion for preparation of transcripts at government 

expense. 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7791

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
TERRI DIANNE NEWMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 7:16

- cr - 00705

- TMC

- 8 )

Submitted : May 20, 2021 Decided: May 24, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Terri Dianne Newman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Terri Dianne Newman appeals the district court’s order denying h er moti on for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error

. Accordingly, we deny Newman’s motion for appointment of
counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United State s v. Newman , No. 7 : 16

- cr - 00 705

- TMC

- 8 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2020). 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.
AFFIRMED
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C28 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C28 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016  /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### Frank CAGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22983.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1944.

J. E. Winfree and Bernard Golding, both of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was indicted for keeping and exhibiting a policy game. Under the formalities required by the statute — Art. 10 a and 12, Vernon’s Ann.Tex. C.C.P., Acts 42d Leg., c. 43, p. 65 — appellant waived a jury and entered his plea of guilty before the court, who, after hearing the evidence submitted adjudged appellant guilty of keeping and exhibiting a policy game and assessed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant gave notice of appeal to this court. He has now filed his affidavit advising us that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal, and at his request same is dismissed.
ex103.htm












Convertible Promissory Note







This Promissory Note (the “Note”) is entered into on this 30th day of June, 2015, between Vet Online Supply and Kensington Marketing, LLC.







Kensington Marketing, LLC has, to date, paid the following invoices on behalf of Vet Online Supply, relative to startup costs of Vet Online Supply, and the costs of taking Vet Online Supply Public:







Cash deposit for Bank opening                                                                                                                      $       500.00


SD Mitchell & Associates, PLC (Legal Fees)                                                                                               $  12,500.00


Fees paid to BF Borgers (Audit Fees)                                                                                                           $    3,240.00







                   Total                                                                                             $  16,240.00


 


Terms:  Vet Online Supply promises to pay Kensington Marketing, LLC the full amount of the loan within ninety (90) days of the Vet Online Supply getting notice of effect from its S-1 Registration Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.







At any time prior to the maturity of the Note, Kensington Marketing may elect to convert the loan into Common Shares of Vet Online Supply at a fixed price of $0.10 per share.







WITNESSETH this 30th day of June, 2015.


 




 



	 	
Vet Online Supply 


 

	 	
 Kensington Marketing, LLC


 

	 
	 	 /s/ Edward Aruda 	 	  /s/ Amy Chaffe 	 
	 	 By: Edward Aruda 	 	 By: Amy Swanson Munro Chaffe, Principal
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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                at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                August 4, 2008 | /s/                Kang Yihua                |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                | Kang                Yihua                    |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer       |
|                                | (Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CHASITY CONGIOUS, et al., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00092-O

§

COUNTY OF TARRANT, ET AL §

§

Defendants. §

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Attorney Jeanette S. Samuels respectfully moves to withdraw her appearance as 

counsel for Plaintiff(s) and in support thereof, states as follows: 

1. The undersigned has filed an Appearance on behalf of Plaintiff(s). 

2. The undersigned counsel no longer represents Plaintiff(s). 

3. Additional attorneys currently represent these Plaintiff(s) and will 

continue to diligently and ably represent them going forward in this matter. The 

undersigned’s motion to withdraw will not prejudice the representation or cause any 

undue delay in this proceeding. 

WHEREFORE attorney Jeanette S. Samuels respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter an order granting the motion to withdraw and terminate her 

Appearance for Plaintiff(s). 

Dated: 1 November 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

Jeanette Samuels

SAMUELS & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 831

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 76 Filed 11/09/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 976
2

Chicago, Illinois 60604

T: 872.588.8726

F: 872.813.5256

E: Sam@ChiCivilRights.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel swears, on oath, that a true and complete copy of the 

foregoing was served on all counsel of record via the court’s electronic filing system on 

9 November 2023. 

s/ Jeanette Samuels

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 76 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 977
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Lowell B. Long, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 

# FILED FEB 

## 242009 NANCYMAYERWHITTINGTON CLERK 

### U.S.DISTRICTCOURT'



### v. ) ) ) 

# 09 0360 Steven D. Bolton, U.S. Probation )**Offi~~** ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review ofplaintiffspro se complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915A (requiring dismissal ofa prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint, among other grounds, seeks monetary relieffrom an immune defendant). Plaintiff, an inmate at the District ofColumbia Jail, sues United States Probation Officer Steven D. Bolten for allegedly "failing to provide reasonable notice ofprobation violation," in violation ofthe due process clause. Compl. at 5. He seeks $350,000 in monetary damages. Like judges and other court officials, probation officers "are absolutely immune from liability for damages" under 42 U.S.C. 

### § 1983 for actions taken, as alleged here, within the scope oftheir official duties as "an integral part ofthejudicial process." Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The complaint therefore is dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: February

## ~, 2009
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000446

08-FEB-2017

07:57 AM
NUMBER 13-22-00511-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE WAN-TSING KWANG

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

On October 24, 2022, relator Wan-Tsing Kwang filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and a motion for emergency stay. By petition for writ of mandamus, relator 

seeks to compel the trial court to vacate a temporary order, signed on October 12, 2022,

requiring relator to pay attorney’s fees. By motion for emergency stay, relator seeks to 

stay the trial court’s temporary order and the trial court proceedings. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for emergency stay, 

is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the motion for emergency 

stay and we order the trial court’s temporary order and all trial court proceedings to be 
2

stayed pending the resolution of this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) 

(“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case 

is finally decided.”). We request the real party in interest, Jun Liang, or any others whose 

interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, to file a response to the petition for 

writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See

id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

24th day of October, 2022.
#### Kevin Calkins, Respondent, v Ronald E. Perry et al., Doing Business as Change of Pace, Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order which granted plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure of certain statements of defendants and various witnesses, and denied defendants’ cross motion for a protective order. Defendants resist disclosure on the ground that the statements, which constitute accident reports, are material prepared in anticipation of litigation.

The court properly ordered disclosure. CPLR 3101 (d) (2) provides that "materials otherwise discoverable * * * and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party * * * may be obtained only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means”. CPLR 3101 (g), which creates an exception to the conditional disclosure exemption of CPLR 3101 (d) (2), provides that "there shall be full disclosure of any written report of an accident prepared in the regular course of business operations or practices of any person, firm, corporation, association or other public or private entity”. Thus, accident reports, including those prepared by a party for his attorney or insurer, are conditionally immune from disclosure if they were prepared exclusively for the purpose of preparing for litigation. Conversely, there must be full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the ordinary course of business that were motivated at least in part by a business concern other than preparation for litigation *(see, Harris v Processed Wood,*89 AD2d 220, 222).

Applying that rule, we conclude that the statements sought by plaintiff are not immune from disclosure. The EBT testimony and affidavit of defendant Ronald Perry establish that the statements were prepared and obtained as part of defendants’ business routine. Moreover, neither their lawyer nor their insurer requested defendants to prepare those reports. Those facts, combined with the fact that defendants generally kept the reports unless and until someone made a claim, suggest that they were prepared at least in part for an internal purpose. Finally, at the time the statements were prepared, defendants apparently were unaware that plaintiff had been injured and was contemplating a lawsuit. In those circumstances, where the statements were prepared in the regular course of business, partially for a business purpose, it is immaterial that the statements may also be used in litiga*1000tion. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Purple, J. — discovery.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138635 

LESIA SYROWATKA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138635 

 COA: 277336 

Washtenaw CC: 05-000203-CK 

COUNTY OF WASHTENAW, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.