alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Navy Ship Mercy, Pacific Partnership Mission Arrives in Indonesia

By MC2 Kelsey L. AdamsPacific Partnership Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
**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 Annual Report of AmeriChip International, Inc. .(the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended November 30, 2006, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Mark Walther, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2001, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      March 12, 2007





/s/Mark
      Walther


Mark
      Walther,


Chief
      Executive Officer
#### Will of Hoege.

*June 4*

June *24, 1929.*

*333For the appellant there was a brief by *Henry J. Bohn*and *Robert H. Gollmar,*both of Baraboo, and oral argument by *Mr. Gollmar.*

For the respondents there was a brief by /. *W. Frern*of Baraboo, attorney for the executor, and *Grotophorst, Quale & Longer*of Baraboo, attorneys for Cora E. Hoege, and oral argument by *Mr. Frenz.*

Crownhart, J.

The will of the deceased, Eliza Hoege, provided that her estate, consisting of forty acres of land upon which there were farm buildings, should go to her issue, being two sons and one daughter, in the following proportions: To her son, Alba J. Hoege, an undivided one-half; to her daughter, Cora E. Hoege, an undivided three-eighths ; and to her son, Orrin B. Hoege, an undivided one-eighth. The will contains this further provision:

> “And in making the provision herein mentioned for my daughter, Cora E. Hoege, it is my will that she shall have three-eighths of the said land, and the house and other buildings on the same.”

The contestant, Orrin B. Hoege, contends that the deceased was incompetent to make the will; that the will was not executed in the manner provided by law; and that the will was procured by the exertion of undue influence of the devisees Alba J. Hoege and Cora E. Hoege.

The will was executed in due form, as appears from the face thereof. There is no evidence from which the court reasonably could find that any undue influence was brought to bear upon the testator in making her will.

The main contention is that the will in fact fails to carry out the intention of the testator and is invalid for that reason. The will devises undivided interests in the land, and there was evidence before the court from which it might appear that the testator, prior to the making of the will, had expressed her intention of devising the land in specifically *334divided portions, and the intent by her expressed that the daüghter should have the farm buildings indicates that she had that thought in mind at the time she made the will. But the language of the will is not ambiguous. The will plainly devises the land to her children as tenants in common.

The construction of the will is to be determined when the estate is assigned, or in a proper proceeding in the county court for a construction of the will.

The county court found that the deceased was competent to make the will; that she was under no restraint in making it; and that the will was duly executed. The evidence sustains his findings. It is unnecessary to review the evidence in detail.

*By the Court.*— The order of the county court is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10592

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEMARCUS JOHNSON-PHILLIPS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-299-1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Demarcus JohnsonPhillips has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Johnson-Phillips has filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as Johnson-Phillips’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10592 Document: 00514933987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2019
No. 18-10592

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10592 Document: 00514933987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2019
No. 90-5979.

#### Gray *v.*Minnesota.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Certio-rari denied.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-50042 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Joshua Adam Olgin, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:19-CR-190-1 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Joshua Adam Olgin appeals his conviction for possession with intent 

to distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. For the first 

time on appeal, he argues that the district court erred in accepting his guilty 

plea because there was an inadequate factual basis as to his intent to distribute 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 25, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-50042 Document: 00516067964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2021
No. 20-50042 

2 

or his possession of actual methamphetamine rather than a mixture or 

substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. Reviewing 

his arguments for plain error in light of the entire record, we affirm. See

United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). 

With respect to his intent to distribute, Olgin has failed to establish 

that any error by the district court was clear or obvious. See United States v. 

Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 952 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Kates, 174 

F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 1999). With respect to his possession of actual 

methamphetamine, even if we assume that the district court clearly or 

obviously erred in finding a sufficient factual basis as to that element, Olgin 

fails to show that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. 

Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-50042 Document: 00516067964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2021
#### Grinwald and another, Respondents, vs. Mayer, Appellant.

*February 11*

March 8, *1932.*

*417
      *J. H. Schnorenberg*of Hartford, for the appellant.

For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of /. *C. Russell*of Hartford.

Rosenberry, C. J.

The relief sought in this proceeding by the defendant was a stay of proceedings upon summary application made after judgment. The order denying the relief is not an appealable order unless it affects a substantial right. Sec. 274.33 (2), Stats. From an early day it has been held that the term *substantial right*as used in this statute is that which concerns the subject matter of the action and not a mere matter of practice. *Rahn, v. Gunnison,*12 Wis. *528; *Petition of Fleming,*16 Wis. *70. See, also, cases cited under “Substantial Right,” 7 Words and Phrases (1st ser.) p. 6739.

*418The relief sought in this application is a mere stay in the procedural process. It is nowhere claimed that the defendant is not liable upon the judgment. The defendant in this action seeks a stay of proceedings in order that he may offset his ■ liability in this action against the liability which he hopes to establish against plaintiffs in another action. So far as the application here involves anything beyond a stay of proceedings it is improperly made, as the jurisdiction to control the parties to the action pending in the county court of Dodge county is in that court.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
Page 1 of 2 

Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission

Commissioners’ Monthly Docket Report at Close of Business on March 31, 2020

 DOCKET 

NUMBER

RESPONDENT'S 

NAME

DOCKETED TYPE* BRIEFING

NOTICE 

DATE

BRIEFING 

STATUS 

COMMISSIONER 

NOT 

PARTICIPATING

1 14-1688

Science Applications 

International Corp., 

d/b/a SAIC

06/23/16 DFR 10/31/16 Closed

2 15-1121 Clean Fuels of Indiana, 

Inc. 06/30/16 DFR 11/09/16 Closed

3 14-1268 Dover High 

Performance Plastics 07/19/16 DFR 11/01/16 Closed

4 15-1347 Gate Precast Co. 11/10/16 DFR 12/05/16 Closed

 5 16-1533

Cooper/T. Smith 

Corporation, d/b/a 

Blakeley Boatworks, 

Inc.

04/27/17 DFR 04/27/17 Closed

 6 16-0803 The Lane Construction 

Corporation 05/23/17 DFR 09/14/17 Closed

 7 16-1167 Aerospace Testing 

Alliance 08/22/17 DFR 11/20/17 Closed

 8 15-1069 Healy Tibbitts Builders, 

Inc. 10/27/17 DFR 11/13/17 Closed

 9 16-0940 Angel Brothers 

Enterprises, Ltd. 11/17/17 DFR 12/15/17 Closed

10 17-0190 Shelly & Sands, Inc. 05/02/18 DFR 05/10/18 Closed

11 15-1574

MasTec North America 

dba MasTec Advanced 

Technologies, Inc.

06/20/18 DFR 07/10/18 Closed

12 17-0949 Walmart, Inc. 07/12/18 DFR 08/09/18 Closed

13 17-1214 Mansfield Industrial, 

Inc. 11/23/18 DFR 01/03/19 Closed

14 17-0483 Ceco Concrete 

Construction, LLC 11/28/18 DFR 12/19/18 Closed

15 16-1628 Schaad Detective 

Agency, Inc. 12/18/18 DFR 01/07/19 Closed

16 17-1174 Wayne Farms, LLC 03/01/19 DFR 03/21/19 Closed

17 17-2144 Tampa Electric Co. 04/09/19 DFR 04/23/19 Closed

18 18-0034

Armstrong Utilities, 

Inc. d/b/a Armstrong 

Cable Services

10/15/19 DFR 10/24/19 Open

19 17-0138 Home Rubber 

Company, LP 10/22/19 DFR 

11/04/19 Open

20 18-0970 FreightCar America, 

Inc. 10/28/19 DFR 11/04/19 Closed

21 18-0758 RoadSafe Traffic 

Systems, Inc. 10/30/19 DFR 11/01/19 Closed

22 09-1901 Seward Ship’s 

Drydock, Inc. 11/04/19 REM
Page 2 of 2 

Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission

Commissioners’ Monthly Docket Report at Close of Business on March 31, 2020

 DOCKET 

NUMBER

RESPONDENT'S 

NAME

DOCKETED TYPE* BRIEFING

NOTICE 

DATE

BRIEFING 

STATUS 

COMMISSIONER 

NOT 

PARTICIPATING

23 17-1894 Maxim Crane Works 02/06/20 DFR 02/14/20 Open

24 17-0737

UHS of Westwood 

Pembroke, Inc.

UHS of Delaware, 

Inc.

03/19/20 DFR 03/25/20 Open

*DFR – Direction For Review

 REM – Appellate Remand

 INT REV – Interlocutory Review
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Joseph
      Wagner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of XA,
      Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
      XA,
      Inc.





*By:/s/
      Joseph Wagner*


Joseph
      Wagner


Chief
      Executive Officer





March
      30,
      2007
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-10-00434-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: LEOPOLDO LEAL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Leopoldo Leal, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the foregoing

cause on August 2, 2010, in which he requests this Court to compel the respondent, the

Honorable Nelva Gonzales Ramos, presiding judge of the 347th District Court of Nueces

County, to vacate her July 7, 2010 order in trial court cause number 10-1868-H. The July

7, 2010 order: (1) declares relator to be a vexatious litigant; and (2) orders him to pay
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.051, 11.055 (Vernon 2002). We note that we have 2

construed relator’s petition liberally, as it fails to meet the requirements specified in the rules of appellate

procedure. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. W e also note that relator has previously filed petitions which

failed to comply with applicable requirements. See, e.g., In re Leal, No. 13-10-102-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS

1622, at **1-2 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Mar. 4, 2010) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 3

2

security in the amount of $24,000 on or before July 20, 2010. 

2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.3

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

4th day of August, 2010.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT 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 Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, and
John Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their knowledge,
that:  (i)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.May 13, 2005 By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the
Partnership
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
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 Absolute Potential, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas F. Duszynski, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language
in such filing.

|                          |    
|------------------------- | ---
|                          |    
|Dated:  December 29, 2011 | By:
|                          |    
|                          |
##### 



Exhibit 10.43 Photon Dynamics, Inc.  2005 Equity Incentive Plan
 Stock Option Agreement  (Incentive Stock Option or Nonstatutory Stock Option)
   1. Vesting.
 2. Number of Shares and Exercise Price.
 3. Exercise prior to Vesting (Early Exercise). provided, however,
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 1




---



##### 



4. Method of Payment. permitted by your Grant Notice,
 (a) The Wall Street
Journal
 (b) The Wall Street Journal
 5. Whole Shares.
 6. Securities Law Compliance.
 7. Term.
 (a)
 (b)
 2




---



##### 



(c)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
  8. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 3




---



##### 







9. Transferability.


10. Option not a Service Contract.


11. Withholding Obligations.


(a)


(b)


(c) 4




---



##### 



12. Notices.
 13. Governing Plan Document.
 5
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

# USS Momsen Conducts Underway Operations with India Navy

By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Lily GebauerCommander, Task Force 71/Destroyer Squadron 15 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### In re James SANTOS, d/b/a James Electric Co., Inc., Debtor. James SANTOS, d/b/a James Electric Co., Inc., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MAST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Appellant.

Bankruptcy No. 82-9041.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit.

Dec. 17, 1982.

PER CURIAM:

The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. The law is well established. We adopt and affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Bankruptcy Court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANNA VERONICA MURRIETA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10465

D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01172-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Anna Veronica Murrieta appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed

following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

NOV 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10465

Murrieta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider her individual circumstances and arguments for a lower sentence. The

record indicates that the district court considered Murrieta’s arguments in light of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not otherwise procedurally err. 

See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Murrieta also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), her sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is reasonable. See

Carty, 520 F.3d at 993-94.

AFFIRMED.