alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales, Ru ssell and Senior Judge Frank

ZAINAB T. AHMED MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1851-14-4 PER CURIAM JUNE 9, 2015 TRINET/WASHINGTON DUL LES MARRIOTT AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Zainab T. Ahmed, pro se , on brief). (Andrew E. Suddarth; Jordan Co yne LLP, on brief), for appellees.

Zainab T. Ahmed appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that several physical ailments were not causa lly related to her work injury and that Trinet/Washington Dulles Marriott and the insura nce company were not responsible for payment of emergency room visits, a neck collar, and trea tment for the several conditions. Appellant also filed motions for the appointment of counsel and for the Court to impose fines against appellees’ counsel. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss appella nt’s appeal for failure to comply with Rules 5A:20, 5A:25, and 5A:26.

We have reviewed the record and the commi ssion’s opinion and find th at this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Ahmed v. Trinet/Washington Du lles Marriott, VWC File No. VA00000327899 (Sept. 16, 2014). We dispense with oral argum ent and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the Court and argument would

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2- not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. We deny appellant’s motions for appointed counsel and to impose fines agai nst appellees’ counsel a nd appellees’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1530 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1530

  To renew certain Moving to Work agreements for a period of 10 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2015

  Ms. Mikulski (for herself and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To renew certain Moving to Work agreements for a period of 10 years.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Moving to Work Promises 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF MOVING TO WORK AGREEMENTS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``covered agreement'' means a Moving to Work 
        demonstration program agreement between a public housing agency 
        and the Secretary pursuant to section 204 of the Departments of 
        Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
        Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1437f 
        note) that--
                    (A) provides for the use of an alternative 
                operating fund formula; and
                    (B) is in effect on the date of enactment of this 
                Act; and
            (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Housing 
        and Urban Development.
    (b) Renewal of Agreements.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall renew each covered 
        agreement for a period of 10 years.
            (2) Prohibition on changes to financial terms.--In renewing 
        a covered agreement under paragraph (1), the Secretary may not 
        make any significant change to the financial terms of the 
        covered agreement.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50184 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Jacob Ray Owens,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 44

- 2

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Jacob Owens appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine

. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. As Owens acknowledges , his as

- applied Sixth Amendment sentencing challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited cir cum stances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1 7 , 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50184 Document: 00515529043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2020No. 20

- 50184

2 United States v. Hernandez , 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011) ; Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th C ir. 1969) . Accord ingly, his motion for summary disposition is **GRANTED** , and the judgment is
**AFFIRMED.** Case: 20-50184 Document: 00515529043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2020
National Reconnaissance Office Release #05-19

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sept. 23, 2019

Contact: (703) 808-5050 

NRO Awards Fourth Commercial Imagery Study Contract

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) announced today the award of a 

commercial imagery study contract to HySpecIQ (www.hyspeciq.com). This 

award is the NRO’s first such award to a commercial hyperspectral imaging 

company and represents the latest milestone in the agency’s commercial 

imagery acquisition and integration strategy. 

“HySpecIQ is developing interesting new hyperspectral imaging capabilities that 

have the potential to contribute to our current and future overhead architecture,”

said Pete Muend, director of the NRO Commercial Systems Program Office. 

Muend added that the NRO plans to take full advantage of diverse 

phenomenologies available in the commercial market, such as hyperspectral 

imaging, to continue building a responsive, robust and affordable GEOINT 

architecture. 

Hyperspectral images are made up of light from hundreds of colors across the 

electromagnetic spectrum. Since hyperspectral imaging collects many different 

colors of light, any given object will have a unique signature. This enables users

to obtain information about each pixel in an image, with the goal of identifying 

objects and materials.

This study contract joins three additional commercial imagery studies announced 

by the NRO in June of this year to BlackSky Global, Maxar Technologies and 

Planet. 

The NRO will use these and future study contracts to assess the performance 

capabilities of domestic commercial satellite imagery providers and validate their 

ability to satisfy U.S. government requirements into the 2023 timeframe. The 

results will help inform the next generation of NRO’s commercial imagery 

procurements, expected to commence in late 2020. 

-NROThe NRO is a joint Intelligence Community-Department of Defense organization 

responsible for developing, acquiring, launching, and operating America’s intelligence 

satellites to meet the national security needs of our nation.
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.

 March 28, 2014

s0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

148227-9

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148227-9

COA: 302026; 302038; 302045

Macomb CC: 09-005130-FC; 

09-005132-FC; 09-005135-FC

DUNCAN LORENZO ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 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.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVERSELLERS ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL** 

### fioaorible

T.U. Trlmbl~ Flret;rrslstant Stat.iiuparintendent of Publio fn8trUOtlOn hu;tin,Teiar

Thirty-ninth fauielatulri, aatually 1A faot repeal.. the exemption olauae.ai,: ffouw ail1 No. 586, TMrtysecond:

LegielatureP (Greatin6 llaIAdOpOAdeAt SO&O01 **Di8trlot)**

.~. me

### era in 

### rweipt oi your letter or recent dste, 

### readiag~3 r0110w8:



### We would llknto callyour 

### attsntloato H. **9. xo.**  **5593,** irota, **oi** 

### the 32nd **Lagislntura,** 

### 1911, meatlog the Sriggr IA4epeAdcat Soho District in **Uurnet** County, 

### aavmll **a8** 

### to S. B. Xo. 227,**Aots** 

### of tim 39th **Legislature,** 1923, whioh undertook to repeal a portion or 9, B. NO. !%5 with rorareAO0 to exeqtion rr0i4 **cousty** supervision. ~59x1cotmthitutlon,..rtlolr3, Lh3otlon57, reierring to looal **bills, providea**  thut no local bill 14th certain eraeptione may be fntroduoed without having flret been pQbllshed for thirty days, and 

### thut such publictitionsust acompany the local bill in the Legislature.

“Please advise us whether or not 3. B. No. 227, :iCtS ot the 39th Legislature, 1925, actually in fact 

### lepeoled

the exemption clause of H. B. Xo. 585, .;cts of the 32nd Legislature, 1911.”

..^HoAOrlibleT. ;b.Trimble, page 2

IA the year 1925, Seation 5 of titicle 7 authorized the Legisl&ure to oreute school dlatrioteby speoial law,without the notice required by article 3, SeOtiOA 56. See Powell Y. Charoo IAdepeAaent ~abool Xstrict, 203, 9. i'i. 1178. Seotion 3 of artiole 7 was amended at the November election 1926, since whioh tine the Legislature nsy create sohool distrlcteby geAbrk3.l sWs.OAly. You are advised, thererore, that 

### SenateBill No.:'227, Hots **of** the 39th **Legislature,** whioh was passed prior **to** t* 1926 **amend-at** is OOAstitUtioAal eAd repealed the eXemptioA **clauee Or**  **House** Bill 585, **AQte** ot the 32Ad Legislature, 1911. **Yours very**  **truly**

irasistant
**CFG:EFP**
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
and to all references to our Firm included in or made a part of this
registration statement.
 
                                       Arthur Andersen LLP
 
Detroit, Michigan,
     
  April 28, 1999.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Martinez, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 680]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered July 2, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 71/2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the People’s summation generally constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in response to defense arguments, and the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). The People were entitled to comment on the credibility of defendant’s testimony and on the lack of evidentiary support for his claims. To the extent that the summation contained any improprieties, the court’s curative actions, along with its final jury instructions, prevented any prejudice. The court clearly instructed the jury that the burden of proof remained on the People and did not shift to defendant. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
**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 Somerset International Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John X. Adiletta, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| (2) | The information contained  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
| /s/ John X. Adiletta |  
John X. Adiletta

 
Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

 
 

November 14, 2005

 

 

  |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM CONDENSED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,383
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,032
<PP&E>                                         211,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,084
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           506
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,541
<SALES>                                        139,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,840
<CGS>                                          122,367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,759
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,095
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,664
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,664
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
        

</TABLE>
99-1231.

#### Howard v. Spore.

In Prohibition. Reported at 86 Ohio St.3d 1435, 713 N.E.2d 1048. On motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. Motion denied.
#### Estate of Knutson: Knutson, Appellant, vs. Knutson and others, Respondents.

*April 1*

April *29, 1930.*

*528For the appellant there was a brief by *Richmond, Jack-man, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison, and oral argument by *Harold M. Wilkie.*

*E. C. Higbee*of counsel, and *Fred G. Silberschmidt,*attorney, both of La Crosse, for the respondents.

Fritz, J.

Under all of the facts and circumstances Sidney was entitled to at least equal consideration with his sisters and brother in the testamentary disposition of his father’s property. The evidence discloses no sane reason for disinheriting Sidney. On the contrary, his conduct toward and relations with his father, and the respective obligations and relative circumstances of all persons concerned, were such that Sidney might well have been accorded some preference. The unfair and unnatural disposition cannot be ascribed to any trouble between Sidney and his father in relation to the renting of the farm, because the matter of Sidney’s leaving the farm did not enter into their relations until he moved off the farm in August, 1921, which was eight months after the execution of the will. The testator’s unfounded obsessions as to Sidney, and his persistence in repeating his accusations without reason and in utter disregard of all efforts to disabuse his mind, clearly establish the existence of an insane delusion which materially affected and controlled the testator in the making of his will, and deprived him of the mental capacity necessary to appreciate and understand the natural claims of each of his children upon his bounty in the testamentary disposition of his property. But for the unfortunate obsession which dominated the testatorto the prejudice of Sidney, he would undoubtedly have made a different will and treated Sidney more justly. The following statement in *Will of Behm,*187 Wis. 10, 13, 203 N. W. 718, is squarely in point:

> “One of the cardinal tests of the presence of undue influence or the effect of an obsession on a testator is to consider *529the result of the will and to determine whether or not such result was arrived at by reason of the undue influence or the existence of the obsession. It seems to us highly improbable that but for the obsession the testator would have made the will that he did. The terms of the will seem rather to be the result of the existence of the obsession. It follows from what has been said that the conclusion drawn by the trial court must be set aside and disregarded.”

The court’s finding that the will was the product of a sane mind was certainly contrary to the clear preponderance of the evidence, and cannot stand.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and causé remanded with directions to disallow the probate of the will.
Exhibit 32.2



ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned officer of ZOLL Medical Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, the Companys annual report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended October 3, 2004 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or
filed for any purpose whatsoever.



|                        |  |  |  |       |  |                                                                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: December 23, 2004 |  |  |  | Name: |  | /s/ A. Ernest Whiton                                                          
|                        |  |  |  |       |  | A. Ernest Whiton, Vice President of Administration and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2

Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 for Geodyne Instituitonal/Pension
Energy Income Limited Partnership P-8.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
February 24, 2006
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Stenger, Wren

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:36 PM

To: Sutton, Lisa; Wortman, Eric

Subject: FW: SSM SIP call signed today

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

For recird

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Donaldson, Guy

Sent: 5/22/2015 11:11 AM

To: beverly.botchlet

‐ smith@deq.state.ok.us ; cheryl.bradley@deq.state.ok.us ; dbrymer@tceq.state.tx.us ;

davisa@adeq.state.ar.us ; eddie.terrill@deq.state.ok.us ; Fmacias@cabq.gov ; Itavarez@cabq.gov ; Nieto, Margaret E. ;

rheaume@adeq.state.ar.us ; richard.goodyear@state.nm.us ; rita.bates@state.nm.us ; Tegan Treadaway ; Vivian Aucoin ;

Steve Hagle ; Stephanie Bergeron Perdue ; scott.thompson@deq.ok.gov ; tyler.powell@doe.ok.gov ; peggy.hatch@la.gov ;

vince.sagnibene@la.gov ; Ryan Flynn ; Spencer, Stuart ; Keogh, Becky

Cc: Shar, Alan ; Bartley, Richard ; Janis Hudson ; Stenger, Wren ; Hansen, Mark ; Luthans, William ; Robinson, Jeffrey

Subject: SSM SIP call signed today

This message is a follow

‐ up Wren Stenger’s recent phone call or E

‐ mails notifying you about the final action the EPA

Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, including

when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated

in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has

revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. Your state will have 18 months to submit revisions

of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.

As part of our notification to your state about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the EPA’s

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action,

including the specific SIP provisions your state needs to address, we have posted a pre

‐ publication version of the action

on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/emissions.html

.

The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. If you or your

staff have questions, please contact myself at 214

‐ 665

‐ 7242 or Alan Shar with technical questions at 214

‐ 665

‐ 6691 or

Richard Bartley 214

‐ 665

‐ 8046 with legal questions.

Attachment