alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-2225

___________ Brian True, * * Appellant, * * v. * * State of Nebraska; Robert Houston, * Director, Department of Correcti onal * Appeal from the United States Services, an Agency of the St ate of * District Court for the Nebraska; Diane Sabatka-Rine, * District of Nebraska. Warden, Lincoln Correctional Center; * Robert Madsen, Deputy Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED] Lincoln Correctional Center, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 23, 2011 Filed: October 12, 2011

___________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After a non-jury trial, the district court 1 dismissed Brian L. True’s suit for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. True v. Nebraska , 2011 WL 1791353 (D.Neb. May 11, 2011), remanded by 612 F. 3d 676, 683 n.5 (8th Cir. 2010). The

1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.district court specifically found that co mmunity custody inmates “have unsupervised access to the [prison] parking lot,” and thus the random search of True’s vehicle was reasonable “to keep contraband out of the institution.” True appeals. The judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears. The judgment is affirmed. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
Third Department,

September, 1995

(September 7, 1995)

#### In the Matter of Stanley Moore, Appellant, v Daniel A. Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 99]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered November 22, 1993 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules as the result of his refusal to remove *741a sign displayed in his cell which made allegations against the prison administration. Upon review of the record, we find that substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who prepared it, supports the administrative determination. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we find that petitioner was given adequate notice of the charges against him. We further find that the Hearing Officer did not unduly restrict petitioner’s questioning of the correction officer who prepared the misbehavior report. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Thomas Gene BOYD and Thomas Gene Boyd, Inc.

No. LR-C-77-004.

United States District Court, E. D. Arkansas, W. D.

Sept. 15, 1981.

Robert A. Fitz, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.

John Langston, Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.

ORDER

ROY, District Judge.

The Secretary of Labor filed this action for overtime compensation for the former employees of the defendants, Thomas Gene Boyd and Thomas Gene Boyd, Inc.

Thomas Gene Boyd, Inc., filed a Petition in Bankruptcy on July 14, 1978. The corporation obtained a discharge on September 1, 1978.

Thomas Gene Boyd, the individual defendant, filed a Petition in Bankruptcy on February 1, 1979. He was discharged in bankruptcy on April 25, 1979.

The claims of this lawsuit were listed in both bankruptcy petitions.

The foregoing petitions were filed prior to the effective date of the new Bankruptcy Code — October 1, 1979 — and were, therefore, controlled by the old Bankruptcy Act.

Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Section 17 of the old Act (11 U.S.C. § 35) describes those debts which are not affected by a discharge. Included are:

> . . . wages which have been earned within three months before the date of com*417mencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy due to workmen, servants, clerks or traveling or city salesmen, on salary or commission basis, whole or part time, whether or not selling exclusively for the bankrupt;

The converse of that, of course, is that those wages earned outside those three months before the commencement of the proceedings are dischargeable.

Defendants, as a supplement to their Motion for Summary Judgment, provided the Court with an affidavit by the individual defendant, who states that the last date wages obligated to be paid would have been earned on December 17, 1977, the last date on which the defendants did business. Clearly, the dates of July 14, 1978, and February 1, 1979, the dates of filing petitions in bankruptcy for the corporate and individual defendants, respectively, are without the three-month period, and the overtime compensation claimed by plaintiff is discharged.

Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants herein must be, and is, granted, and the Complaint of the plaintiff is dismissed, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
No. 86-71.

No. 86-97.

#### CTS Corp. *v.*Dynamics Corporation of America; and Indiana *v.*Dynamics Corporation of America.

C. A. 7th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, *ante,*p. 810.] Motion of appellants for divided argument granted.
TREASURY INTERNATIONAL, INC. 99.1

                            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 Treasury International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dale Doner, President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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.





                           /s/ Dale Doner
                           --------------------------------
                           Dale Doner
                           President
                           Treasury International, Inc.



                           September 19, 2003























                                    99.1-1
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

# U.S. Donates PHP 1.6 Million in Disaster Relief, Medical Supplies to Palawan

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/08

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■ ■

■

■

★ ■ ■

■

■

★

● ●

●

●

★

●

●

● ●
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended
      December 31, 2005 (the "Report") by Ames National Corporation (the "Company"),
      the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies that:





1.  
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.  
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of
      and for the period covered by the Report.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the
      15th
      day of March, 2006.








*/s/*
            *Daniel
                L. Krieger*Daniel
                L. Krieger, Chairman and President(Principal
                Executive Officer)
No. 90-478.

#### Lorenzo *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Excelligence Learning Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Ronald Elliott     
|                     |  | Ronald Elliott         
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46598

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ALLEN CURTIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: June 10, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge. 

Appeal from order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, dismissed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Michael Allen Curtis pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1). The parties entered into a I.C.R. 11 plea agreement in which a misdemeanor charge 

was dismissed and the State agreed not to file a persistent violator enhancement. The parties 

stipulated to a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three 

years. Curtis agreed to waive the right to file a “Rule 35 motion regarding the initial Judgment 

(except as to an illegal sentence)” and to “appeal any issues in this case, including all matters 

involving the plea or the sentence and any rulings made by the court.” The district court 

sentenced Curtis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of 
2

three years. Thereafter, Curtis filed a Rule 35 motion seeking a reduction of his sentence, which 

the district court denied. Curtis appeals, noting he is mindful of his appeal waiver but 

nonetheless asserting the district court erred in denying his motion for a sentence reduction.

We hold that Curtis’s appellate challenge regarding his sentence has been waived by his 

plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez, 142 Idaho 786, 787, 133 P.3d 1251, 

1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Curtis’s plea agreement contained a clause by which Curtis waived his 

right to file a Rule 35 motion and his right to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss Curtis’s appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the balance sheet and
income statement of Omnipoint corporation as of and for the nine months ended
September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         251,302
<SECURITIES>                                   117,889
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,849
<INVENTORY>                                     49,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               498,413
<PP&E>                                       1,351,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                (269,251)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,312,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          418,695
<BONDS>                                        812,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    544,384
<COMMON>                                           537
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,367,477)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,312,387
<SALES>                                        266,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,177
<CGS>                                          224,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               383,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (192,639)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (510,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (510,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (510,254)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (9.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (9.57)


</TABLE>
#### Laurent, Appellant, vs. Van Somple, Respondent.

*September 16*

October *5, 1915.*

*Slander: Words not actionable: Special damage.*

1. Words alleged to have been spoken by the pastor of a church concerning plaintiff, who had charge of the collection of the accounts of the parish, to the effect that the books showed that a certain sum had been collected but there was “no account to show what became of it,” are *held*not to be actionable *per se,*because they do not in their natural and ordinary meaning charge a criminal offense but merely slovenly or imperfect bookkeeping.

2. Alleged loss of customers in his business as a blacksmith cannot be *held*to be the natural or proximate result of the charge of bad bookkeeping so made, so as to render the words actionable.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Oconto county: W. B. QuikxaN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This is a slander action. A demurrer *ore tenus*to the complaint was sustained and the plaintiff appeals. The complaint charges in substance that the plaintiff is a blacksmith and wagonmaker in business as such at Lena, Oconto county, Wisconsin; that defendant is a priest and the pastor of the Catholic church at Lena; that in January and February, 1913, the plaintiff was a trustee of said church and secretary of the board of trustees having charge of the collection of the accounts of the parish; that on January 18, 1914, the defendant, while speaking to the congregation about the accounts of the church and the moneys collected and handled by the trustees and the plaintiff, after reading the accounts maliciously spoke of the plaintiff, in the presence of the entire congregation, the following words: “What was done between January and March, 1913, I am not responsible for. There was sixty-odd dollars collected that I cannot account for. I have nothing to show. This is for accounts of January and February, 1913. The books show that this was collected, but there is no account to show what became of it;” meaning to charge and being understood by the hearers to *355charge the plaintiff with larceny and embezzlement of the funds of the chnrch. It is also alleged that by reason of the speaking of the words the plaintiff has been damaged in his business and lost numerous customers and greatly injured in his reputation, all to his damage in the sum of $3,000.

Eor the appellant there ivas a brief by *Glasson & O’Kellir*her, and oral argument by *J. V. O’Kelliher.*

*J. H. M.*Wigman, for the respondent.

Winslow, C. J.

It is held in this case that the judgment was right because (1) the words alleged do not in their natural and ordinary meaning charge a criminal offense but merely slovenly or imperfect bookkeeping; (2) if it be held that they are defamatory in their nature and hence slanderous because special damage is alleged *(Servatius v. Pichel,*34 Wis. 292), the answer is that loss of customers by a blacksmith cannot be held to be the natural or proximate result of a charge of bad bookkeeping.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

SlEBECKER, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00894]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board

    The National Science Board's ad hoc Working Group on Administrative 
Burdens (AB), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the 
National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec.  1862n-5), 
and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. Sec.  552b), hereby 
gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction 
of National Science Board business, as follows:

DATE AND TIME: Friday, January 23, 12:00-1:00 p.m., EST.

SUBJECT MATTER: Chairman's remarks; update on NSF implementation of 
Uniform Guidance and Administrative Burdens Task Force recommendations; 
and draft comments on proposed National Institutes of Health multisite 
Institutional Review Board policy.

STATUS: Open.
    This meeting will be held by teleconference. A public listening 
line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board 
Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0aea1b4a9afaea1acb3a3a9a5aea3a5a2b2a480aeb3a6eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9af4fbeef3f5f4fbf6e9f9f3fff4f9fff8e8fedaf4e9fcb4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>) at least 24 hours prior to the 
teleconference for the public listening number. Please refer to the 
National Science Board Web site www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional 
information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status 
of meeting) which may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. 
Point of contact for this meeting is Jacqueline Meszaros at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8c2c5cddbd2c9dac7e8c6dbce86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4ded9d1c7ced5c6dbf4dac7d29ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

Ann Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00894 Filed 1-15-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY STEVEN AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-93-131, CA-95-177-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Steven Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from a district court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Appellant raised four claims in his habeas motion, that his counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate defenses; (2) failing to move for suppression of evidence; (3) failing to file a motion for discovery; and (4) coercing Appellant to pleadguilty. The first and fourth allegations directly contradict Appellant's sworn statements in court during the criminal prosecution. Those sworn statements conclusi vely foreclose these two claims because the record contains no compelling circumstances that woulddictate a contrary result. Via v. Superintendent, Powhatan Correctional Ctr. , 643 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir. 1981). The second and third allegations state non-jurisdictional claims antecedent to the guilty plea. They were waived by the guilty plea. Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258 (1973). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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