alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6241
In Re: CLIFTON HARRIS,

Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-2924) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: May 26, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Harris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Clifton Harris petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion to stay his federal habeas corpus petition. That motion was filed in the district court in November 2003, and was supported by additional pleadings in January 2004. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Harris’s motion to appoint counsel and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
---

|Delaware                                       | 0-22790              | 42-1410788                        
|---------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (CommissionFile No.) | (IRS EmployerIdentificationNumber)

|13523 University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa | 50325     
|----------------------------------------- | ----------
|(Address of principal executive offices)  | (Zip Code)

---

---

---

ITEM  5.  OTHER EVENTS.

On June 19, 2001, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.

ITEM  7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

(c)	Exhibits:

Exhibit 99 - Press Release dated June 19, 2001

---



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

| | **STATEFED FINANCIAL CORPORATION**
| | ----------------------------------

|Date:     June 21, 2001 | By:   /s/ Andra K. Black       Andra K. Black, Co-President and CFO
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------

---



|Exhibit No. | Description                      
|----------- | ---------------------------------
|99          | Press Release dated June 19, 2001
REF ID: A66638. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

J'rom: Director, Naval Commun1oat1ons 

To: Direotor, Armed Forces Beourity Agency 

Subj: Disposal ot Surplus Crypto-equipm.ent 

IN REPLY REFER TO 

Op-202R/deb 

Serial 0574lP20 

22OCT195J 

Ret: (a) AFSAO: 66/JO memorandum ot 28 SEP 1951 

1. Re:rerence (a) requested that the Direotor, Armed Foroes 

Seourity .Agency be notified ot the U.S. Navy polic7 with re~pect to the disposal o:r surplus K-209 (OSP 1500) equip- ments. 

2, The U.S. Navy has incorporated these devices in the 

Begistered Publication System and no release to o1v111an 

lllll?'kets has been oontemplated. NaTy atook is considered to 

be reserve, not surplus; and at the present time the U.S. 

Jfar1ne Corps 1s using the CSP 1500 ~or training. Unserviceable equipa.ents have been turned in tb the Cryptographio Repair Facilities tor destruotion. 

). The Director, Naval Communications concurs in the advisability ot a unitorm polioy within the Department or Defense 

as ~ecomm.ended 1~ reterence (a). When produotion or the 

lleoh.en1cal Cipher Machine {MCM) ia uutt1o1ent to ensure its 

adequate distribution within the uaval serTioe, the U.S. 

Navy will consider tavorably the adoption ot suoh a policy. 

U. HOWElH 

Captain, U.S. Navy 

AltllllDt Dnctor, Naval CamnlllilatlDal 

:· __ ., .... 

• 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-10-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
0 j " I 

REF ID : A414 ~,S\65 

"'-. ,~ 

GEORGE F'ABVAN 

CHICA<,30 

P 0 BOX 435 Dec.3,1919. 

-.------

I. 

Dear Colonel Mauborgne: 

Many thanks for the bulbs. One of them blew up 

as sonn as it was put on, the other one appears to be O.K. These are 

great valves and they sure are interesting. 

The leading Physicists of the country were at 

Chicago and some of them at Riverbank. There was one fellow in Chicago 

who said he was experimenting with t~e bulbs and he had gotten down to 

50 vibrations a second. At their meeting, another fellow read a paper 

stating that he had got them down to 2 impulses a second and everybody 

thought that was a great feat. 

At Riverbank, we go to sleep between impulses, 

having hitched them up so we get Qne (1) once in five minutes with the 

regularity of clock work and, of course, the number of vibrations can be 

increased per minute and per second and we may be able to make it once in 

10 minutes but I doubt it. 

This is the first announcement of this that has 

been made. Does the Signal Corps want it or any other Department of the 

Government and what is the application? 

Your letter says that you suppose that I want 

another 100 cipher tapes. Please be generous this time and send me ?OO 

cipher tapes. Have a heart. 

Lt. Colonel J. O. Mauborgne, 

Signal Corps, 

120? Eighteenth St., N ,W. :·<\: 

Washington, D. c. , ,-

Sincerely yours~ 

I . @'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2014 pursuant to E .o. 1352a 

-
ill. 

~ 

II' 

ii 

= 

!!!! --

= 

- - . - -: ...... 

. ·'-. ...... 

· .... : 

·· ... 

. ..
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

November 17, 2016

ERRATUM

_______________________ 

Appeal No. 2015-1242

CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP,

Appellant

v.

ORACLE CORPORATION, ORACLE OTC 

SUBSIDIARY, LLC, INGENIO, INC., 

YELLOWPAGES.COM, LLC,

Appellees

Decided: November 17, 2016

Nonprecedential Opinion

______________________ 

 Please make the following change:

 On page 8, line 15, of the concurring opinion of 

Judge Taranto, replace “§ 315(d)” with “§ 315(b).”
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September 13 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00761

- CV

IN RE GORE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 73301



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 29, 2018, relator Gore Family Limited Partnership filed a petition
for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West Supp.
2017 ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel
the Honorable W. Edwin Denman , assigned judge of the 412th District Court of Brazoria County , to vacate his August 23, 2018 order s authorizing Lynn J. Klement, Liq uidating Manager, to enter into a Commercial Real Estate Listing Agreement and2 to retain Eric Furey of Gilbert and Furey to represent him in all the matters involving his work as Liquidating Manager. On September 4, 2018, relator filed a moti on asking our court to stay these orders. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. Standing is an element of an appellate court’ s subject

- matter jurisdiction over a petition for writ of mandamus. In re Baker , 404 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding). To be entitled to mandamus, relators must have a justiciable interest in the underlying controversy. Terrazas v. Ramirez , 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991)

. To obtain mandamus reli ef, a relator generally must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal . In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124,
135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

Relator has not establish ed that it is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay

.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF THE REGISTRANT**

| SUBSIDIARY                            | ** ** | ** **     | ** ** | ** ** | **JURISDICTION  OF INCORPORATION** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------|------------|----------------|------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|
| SatCon Applied  Technology, Inc. |       | Delaware       |
| SatCon Power  Systems, Inc.*     |       | Delaware       |
| SatCon  Electronics, Inc.**      |       | Delaware       |
| Ling Electronics, Ltd.                |       | United Kingdom |
| SatCon Power Systems Canada, Ltd.     |       | Canada         |

 

----

*                    Also doingbusiness as “MagMotor” and “Ling Electronics”

**             Also doing businessas “Film Microelectronics, Inc.”

----
REF ID:A58872 

SS:URITY CATION Wun 

DISPOSITION ·FORM 

FILE NO: 

TO OOT 

THRU: 41 

" . . C>4'l' 

oq. 

Refe:nences: (a) 

(b) 

(c) 

SUBJECT 

Security o.f 

, FROM 4~2 , 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO . 3 >3 ( h) ( 2 ) ' 

TOP sreRIEi 

Telecrypto, 

DATE 8 Nov .51 COMMENT NO. 1 

J. T. Wagoner/b0443/mt 

Report C25.3ll.l, Cryptanalytic Survey of New Hagelin Teletype 

Scrambler, by F. T. LeatJY,, Jr. 

AFSA-412B, BriefSecurityEstimate on Telecrypto,'15 June 1951 

AFSA-OOT informal note to AFSA;;;.4+ regarsling Telecrypto 

1. Referehce (c) 0states thp.t there appears.to be a~~ference ,between the 

findings.outlined in.Reference (a) and those in Reference (b},and requests comments. 

3. Reference (b) was prepared on tpe basis of approximately one week's study 

and some of the conclusions were necessarily based on results frozil incompleted 

problems and .conservative est:una.tes of the expected results from further analysis 

on the. problems. In order to obtain a more accurate security est:i:.mate, the.ae 

problems hav~ been completed. Further results are ~s follows: 

, 

1 

JOP SECRB 

eclassifi ed and a oved for release b NS on 06-17-2014 ursuant to E .0. 1352 

D 0 1 Jll"so 9 6 REPLACES NME FORM .. 1 OCT•· WHICH MAY m: USED u-Mllll-e * U I -11 .. llT .. lnlU -ICI:
REF ID :A48T57-l 

Fr ow: Tokyo 

To: Washington 

19 November 1941 

(Jl9) 

Circular #2353 

lOP SE6R,Ef-ULIRA 

COPY 

-

Regarding t~e broadcast of a special message in an 

emergency. 

In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplo~ 

matic relations), and the cutti.ng off of international comm.uni, 

cations, the following wu.rning will be added in the middle of 

the daily Japanese language short wave news broadcast. 

(1) In case of a Japan-U.S. relations in d~nger: 

HIGASHI NO KAZEAME.* 

(2) Japan-U.S.S.R. relations: KITi1.NOKAZE KU.MORI.** 

(3) Japan.:.British relations: NISHI NO KAZE HARE.*** 

This signal will be given in the middle and at the 

end aa ·a weather forecast and each sentence will be repeated 

twice. When this is heard please destroy all code pape~s, etc. 

This is as yet to be a completely secret arrangement. 

Forward as urgent intelligence. 

*East wind rain. 

**North wind cloudy 

***West ~ind clear. 

COPY 

TOP SEGa?T Ul Tiii\ 

JD-1:6875 {Y) Navy Trans. 11-28-41 {S-TT) 

!Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Marco Antonio Sanchez Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2016

No. 04-16-00346-CR

Steve KOU,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR8622

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. We ORDER appellant to file his 

brief on or before December 14, 2016. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1







	COMMON STOCK COMMON STOCK ADS            SEE REVERSE FOR INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CUSIP 00101D 10 9 This certifies that SPECIMEN            is
the record holder of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.001
PER SHARE, OF ADS TACTICAL, INC. transferable on the books of the corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly
endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the transfer agent
and registrar. Transferable in the State of New York. WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the
Corporation’s duly authorized officers. Dated: COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK
TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC (NEW YORK, NY) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATURE SECRETARY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Lionel Taylor, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), entered December 21, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender and a predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Marc J. Whiten, J.), entered December 21, 2009, modified on the law by vacating the determination that defendant is a predicate sex offender and, as modified, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's present contentions that he is entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level because the SORA Court over-assessed points under risk factor 5 (age of victim) and because the harm inflicted was minor, are unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise these factors at the SORA hearing (<i>see People v Rosales</i>, 133 AD3d 733 [2015], <i>lv denied </i>26 NY3d 919 [2016]; <i>People v Brown</i>, 122 AD3d 536 [2014], <i>lv denied </i>24 NY3d 915 [2015]). In any event, defendant's contentions are without merit. Defendant has presented no evidence to show that the 30 point assessment based upon the victim being 70 years old, over estimated his risk level. As the commentary to the SORA Guidelines makes clear, an offender who targets the elderly, defined as a person age 63 or older, is likely to reoffend because the elderly are less capable of fleeing or resisting sexual assault (<i>see</i> SORA Guidelines at 11). Defendant's remaining unpreserved contention was adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument.</p><p>As the People concede, the court erred in classifying defendant as a predicate sex offender. </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <p></p><br>Decision Date: November 16, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

PARKER M. WELCH, DOC #158279, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4029 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 19, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
NO. 07-02-0053-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MAY 28, 2002

______________________________ BETTY ANN NEWBY,

Appellant
v. TISDALE SIDING, INC.

Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE CO UNTY COURT OF HUTCHINS ON COUNTY; NO. 5682; HON . JACK WORSHAM, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS , JJ. Appellant

Betty Ann N ewby, proceed ing pro se , filed a notice of appeal from the tria l court’s judgment dated O ctober 7, 2001. Both the clerk’s record and repo rter’ s reco rd ha ve been filed. Appellant’s brief was original ly due Mar ch 4, 2002, w hich date came and w ent without a br ief or extens ion being fil ed. The Court noti fied appellant on March 14, 2002, thatthe brief wa s past due and that failure to reasonably explain the reasons theref or could result in dismissal. On March 15, 2002, a motion for extension o f time to file the br ief was filed and appellant w

as granted an ex tension u ntil Marc h 29, 2002. So too w as sheadmonished that no further ex tensions would be granted without extre me and unusual circumstances. The March 29, 2 002 deadline pass ed without a ppellant filing either a bri ef
or a further motion to extend the deadl ine. The Court then dismissed the cause for want of prosecution on April 4, 2002 . This resul ted in the appell antfiling a moti on for rehearing wherein Newby

contended that she was denied n otice of the court’s intent to dismiss if the brief was not filed. Concluding that su ch n otice wasnot afforded her, the C ourt granted the motion for rehear ing and reinstated the cause. However, it ordered appellant to file her brief no later than ten days fro m the order dated M ay 9, 2002 and not ified her that the failure to comply w

ould result i n dismissal of the cause. Ten days pass ed without app ellant filing eithe r a brief or a further motion to ex tend the deadline. Acco rdin gly, we dismi ss the appeal for w ant of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).

Per Curiam Do not publish

.
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Roger A. Leopard, President for CalciTech Ltd., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of CalciTech Ltd. for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2007 (“Annual Report”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Annual Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisAnnual Report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Omitted;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: April 10, 2008 /s/ Roger A. Leopard   Roger A. Leopard, President   (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7228
EARL JAMES WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versusCHARLES HILL, Superintendent, Odom Correctional Institute, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-14-5-V) Submitted: March 27, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John William Crone, III, GAITHER, GORHAM & CRONE, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for Appellee. 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. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Watson v. Hill , No. CA-94-14-5-V (W.D.N.C. July 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED