alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 90-5692.

#### Rolle *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 17, 2023

No. 04-23-00017-CR

Hector Enrique LARA-SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR3039

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case . . . is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(a)(2).

This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that the defendant has a right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

We ORDER Appellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this 

court within THIRTY days of the date of this order showing Appellant has the right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no 

amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of February, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1211 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1211

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2018

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 400 N. Main Street, Encinal, Texas, as the ``Encinal Veterans Post 
                               Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ENCINAL VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 400 N. Main Street, Encinal, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Encinal Veterans Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Encinal 
Veterans Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.



|                                         |  |                       
|---------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary Name                          |  | State of Incorporation
|Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC          |  | Delaware              
|Hornbeck Offshore Transportation, LLC    |  | Delaware              
|Hornbeck Offshore Operators, LLC         |  | Delaware              
|Energy Services Puerto Rico, LLC         |  | Delaware              
|HOS-IV, LLC                              |  | Delaware              
|Hornbeck Offshore Trinidad & Tobago, LLC |  | Delaware              
|HOS Port, LLC                            |  | Delaware
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7751
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SEWALL SMITH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3602-AMD) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph R. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Smith , No. CA-96-3602-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 10, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**** 

**CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Raymond Krauss, Chief Financial Officer 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:  July 30, 2009                                                    /s/ Raymond Krauss

                                                                                      Raymond Krauss

                                                                                      Chief Financial Officer

 

 

----
No. 90-755.

#### Warne *v.*Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (Kaiser Permanente Medical Center et al., Real Parties in Interest).

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 3, 2013

p0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147001

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147001

COA: 307190 

Wayne CC: 11-004655-FC

BOBBY MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2013 

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.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Foreign Policy Advisor, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (J005)
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint bio">
    <div class="header">
        
        

        

        

        
        
        <h1 class="title">Foreign Policy Advisor, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (J005)</h1>
        <h2 class="subtitle">Mr. David J. Ranz</h2>
        <h2 class="subtitle"></h2>
        <h2 class="subtitle"></h2>
    </div>
    <div>
        
        <div class="main-image">
            
<div id="bio-gallery" class="gallery">
    
    <div class="img-wrapper">
        <img class="img-responsive" src="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Nov/03/2003334336/400/400/0/231012-A-BA691-1001.JPG" alt="Update AFPIMS Contact"/>
        
    </div>
    
</div>



        </div>
        
    </div>
    <div>
        <p>David J. Ranz assumed the position of Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to United States Indo-Pacific Command on August 29, 2022.<br />
<br />
A native of New York and a career diplomat since 1992, Mr. Ranz is a member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister Counselor. He most recently served as the Consul General of the United States of America in Mumbai, India. Mr. Ranz previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia (India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives) in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs; and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Pakistan. Prior to that, Mr. Ranz was Director of the Office of Pakistan Affairs. Mr. Ranz’s previous assignments include Chargé d’Affaires, a.i., Acting Deputy Chief of Mission, and Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt; and Spokesman and Counselor for Public Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. Mr. Ranz has also served in Rabat, Morocco; Jerusalem; and Karachi, Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ranz was the 2004 recipient of the U.S. Department of State’s Herbert Salzman Award for International Economic Performance. Mr. Ranz has also received six State Department Superior Honor Awards, and a U.S. Department of the Army Commander’s Award for Public Service from General (ret.) David Petraeus. Mr. Ranz graduated summa cum laude from Yale University in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science, and received a Master in Public Policy degree from the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University in 2005. Mr. Ranz is married to Taly Lind, a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Agency for International Development, and has two children. He speaks Arabic, French, and Hebrew.<br />
<br />
<br />
(as of September 2022)</p>

    </div>
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Hawaii Air National Guard Supports Arctic Air Defense Exercise Amalgam Dart

By Master Sgt. Mysti Bicoy 154th Wing Public Affairs - Hawaii Air National Guard

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
April 27, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey Rosen

110 West Main Street #473

Carmel, IN 46032

Dear Mr. Rosen:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your December 29, 2014, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA2014-1108), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-4264.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20933

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO GOMEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H:97-CR-115-1

- - - - - - - - - -

September 15, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Pedro Gomez-Garcia has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and we have independently reviewed counsel’s brief, the record,

and Gomez-Garcia’s response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and

find no nonfrivolous issues. Gomez-Garcia asks this court to

appoint counsel to represent him in his direct criminal appeal. 

There being no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, there is no

justification for appointing new counsel. Gomez-Garcia’s motion 
No. 

-2-

for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Accordingly, the motion to

withdraw is GRANTED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir. 42.2.
#### Edwards, Respondent, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Appellant.

*October 14*

November *9, 1926.*

*Appeal and error: New trial after setting aside verdict procured by perjury: 'Discretion of court.*

1. An order of the circuit court granting a new trial will be affirmed in the absence of an abuse of discretion, p. 330.

2. The granting of a ,new trial by the circuit court after the civil court of Milwaukee county had set aside a verdict for plaintiff and dismissed the complaint because of her false testimony, in an action for personal injuries and for damages to her automobile, is *held*not an abuse of discretion, p. 330.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Oscar M. Fritz, Circuit Judge'.

*Affirmed..*

*329Plaintiff brought an 'action in the civil court of Milwaukee county to recover damages for personal injuries and for injury to her car sustained in a collision with one of' defendant's street cars. On the trial 'she testified she was twenty-eight years old. Her birth record showed her to be thirty-six. She claimed tó have been rendered very nervous on account of the shock received at the time of the accident and to have been discharged by two - employers on account of her nervousness when she was earning $120 per month. One employer testified she was discharged because there was a general reduction in the force, and the other that she took the place of an employee temporarily absent and upon her return plaintiff’s services were dispensed with. Both testified that she was not discharged on account of nervousness, and one said her salary was $115 per month and not $120. The jury returned a special verdict entitling plaintiff to a judgment of $700 for personal injuries and $100 for damages to her car. The civil judge set aside the verdict and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint' upon the merits on account of the material false testimony given by plaintiff. Upon appeal to the circuit court it reversed the judgment of the civil court dismissing the complaint, but appr'oved of the setting aside of the verdict and granted a new trial, at least in part because the alleged false testimony did not affect plaintiff’s cause of action for damages to the car and because it appeared that she might be able .to secure a verdict for personal injury upon competent evidence. From an order granting a new trial the defendant appealed.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan,*and oral argument by *John S. Barry',*all of Milwaukee. *■.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Carroll &'Thekan*of Milwaukee, and oral ‘argument by *George J. Carroll.*

*330Vinje, C. J.

We perceive no abuse of discretion on the part of the circuit court in granting a new' trial. In such case the order must be affirmed. *Raether v. Filer & Stowell Mfg. Co.*155 Wis. 130, 143 N. W. 1035.

As there must be a new trial, we purposely forbear to comment upon the testimony causing the setting aside of the verdict further than to state that it should not form the basis of a judgment.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1535

In re: BAO-TRAN X. NGO,

Debtor.

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

CACI, INC. - FEDERAL,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BAO-TRAN XUAN NGO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01025-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Steven B. Ramsdell, TYLER, BARTL & RAMSDELL, P.L.C., Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen E. Leach, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC, Tysons, 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1535 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1535 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Bao-Tran Xuan Ngo appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy 

court’s determination that attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses awarded to CACI, Inc. -

Federal in arbitration were nondischargeable in Ngo’s bankruptcy. She contends that the 

bankruptcy court erred by giving collateral estoppel effect to the arbitrator’s findings that 

she acted in a “fiduciary capacity” and that she inflicted a “willful and malicious injury.”

“In reviewing the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court, 

we apply the same standard of review that was applied by the district court.” Copley v. 

United States, 959 F.3d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, “we review the bankruptcy court’s 

legal conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and any discretionary 

decisions for abuse of discretion.” Id. With these standards in mind, we have reviewed 

the record submitted on appeal and the arguments of the parties and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order upholding the bankruptcy court’s 

determination that the arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is a 

nondischargeable debt in Ngo’s bankruptcy case. See CACI, Inc.- Fed. v. Ngo, No. 1:21-

cv-01025-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2022). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1535 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Argued and submitted July 27,

affirmed as modified August 24,

reconsideration denied October 14, petition for review denied November 15, 1983 (296 Or 56)

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of MANCE, *Respondent - Cross-Appellant, and*MANCE, *Appellant - Cross-Respondent.*

(81-8-005; CA A26004)

667 P2d 1051

Paul J. Lipscomb, Salem, argued the cause for appellant - cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Blair, MacDonald, Jensen & Lipscomb, Salem.

Arthur B. Knauss, Milwaukie, argued the cause for respondent - cross-appellant. With him on the brief was Redman, Carskadon, Knauss & Kelley, Milwaukie.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*419PER CURIAM

This is a dissolution of marriage case in which wife appeals those portions of the trial court’s decree which concern spousal support, child support, the property division and attorney fees. Husband cross-appeals with respect to the property division and attorney fees. We affirm all aspects of the decree save for that concerning spousal support; we agree with wife that her permanent spousal support should be increased. Accordingly, the first sentence of paragraph 9 of the decree is amended to read:

> “9. Petitioner shall pay to Respondent for spousal support the sum of $500 per month for a period of six years from the date of this decree and thereafter the sum of $400 per month until further order of the court or until she dies.”

Affirmed as modified. Costs to appellant on appeal and cross-respondent on cross-appeal.