alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Rear Admiral Jeffrey Anderson

##                 Director of Operations, J-3, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command            

Rear Adm. Jeffrey T. Anderson is a native of Fayetteville, Georgia. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1991, earning a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering. He subsequently entered flight training and was designated a naval aviator in 1994. He holds a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.

Operationally, he has served in numerous fighter squadrons flying the FA-18C/E/F. His fleet assignments include the Sunliners of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 81 and Marauders of VFA-82. He commanded the Ragin’ Bulls of VFA-37 and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3. He deployed multiple times in support of operations Deliberate Forge, Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Inherent Resolve on USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), and USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75).

Ashore, Anderson’s assignments include duties as a Topgun instructor and training officer at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, training officer and operations officer at VFA-106, assistant chief of staff for training and readiness for Commander, Naval Air Forces Atlantic Fleet, and the Joint Staff where he served in the global force management branch of the Directorate for Regional Operations (J-33). He also served as deputy executive assistant to the 18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as executive assistant to the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

As a flag officer, he served as deputy director for Political-Military Affairs – Asia, Joint Staff, J5, Washington, District of Columbia and Commander, Carrier Strike Group THREE embarked onboard USS Abraham Lincoln.

Anderson is currently serving as the USINDOPACOM director of Operations, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii.
Lamont FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-112

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J EF FE RY M ARSHALL, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 30070 D. C. No . 4 : 0 8 - CR - 0 0 1 1 9 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , W A L L A C E , a n dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J e f f e ryM a r s ha l l appe a l s f

r om the 200- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA K / Res ea r ch 09- 30070 2 m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. M a r s h a ll c o n te n d s th a t th e w ith in - G u id e lin e s r a n g e s e n te n c e is s u b s tan tiv e ly un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of the care eroffe nd er enhancem entov er -r epre se nt ed the se ri ou snes s of hi s pas toffe nses . T he re cord r e f le c ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g a v e th o r o u g h c o n s id e r a tio n to M a r s h a ll’s a r g u m e n ts i n s upportof

hi s r e que s tf

oras e nt e nc e be l ow the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , butf ound the ci rc um st ance s i nsuffi ci entt o w arrantsuch a s ent ence . F urtherm ore, the di stri ct courtcond uct ed a r ea soned and tho roug h anal ys i s of the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors pri or t o i m po si ng a s ent ence t ow ar d the l ow erend o f the advi sory G u id e lin e s r a n g e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis s u b s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . Se e U ni te d States v . Stote rau , 52 4 F . 3d 98 8, 99 9-10 02 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREG STEVEN COOKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-95-160, CA-00-1056)

Submitted: March 4, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Greg Steven Cooke, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

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:

Greg Steven Cooke seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Cooke, Nos. CR-95-160; CA-00-1056

(M.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1261 

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 

to reauthorize the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. RYAN (for himself, Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, and Ms. 

KAPTUR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to reauthorize the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF OHIO & ERIE NATIONAL 

4 HERITAGE CANALWAY. 

5 Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

6 Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333; 110 Stat. 

7 4274; 122 Stat. 824; 122 Stat. 826; 127 Stat. 3801; 127 

8 Stat. 420; 128 Stat. 314; 133 Stat. 778) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1261 IH

1 (1) in section 809, by striking ‘‘2021’’ and in2 serting ‘‘2036’’; and 

3 (2) in section 810(a), by striking 

4 ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
           
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             12 WEEKS ENDED              28 WEEKS ENDED
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------
                                                        OCTOBER 5,    OCTOBER 6,    OCTOBER 5,     OCTOBER 6,
                                                           1997          1996          1997           1996
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>          <C>             <C>      
PRIMARY:

  NET EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK (PRIMARY)      2,891,428     3,041,327   $ 8,960,378    $ 8,075,250
                                                       =======================================================

  SHARES:
     WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON
      EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING                      8,476,605     8,470,358     8,389,769      8,451,077
                                                       ======================================================

  PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE                                 $0.34         $0.36         $1.07          $0.96
                                                       ======================================================

FULLY DILUTED:

  NET EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK (PRIMARY)    $ 2,891,428   $ 3,041,327   $ 8,960,378    $ 8,075,250

  INTEREST (LESS TAX) ON CONVERTIBLE
    SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES                               $663,764      $586,284   $ 2,118,773    $ 1,958,642

                                                       ------------------------------------------------------ 
  ADJUSTED EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK         $ 3,555,192   $ 3,627,611   $11,079,151    $10,033,892
                                                       ======================================================

  SHARES:
     WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON
      EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING                      8,553,284     8,470,358     8,524,148      8,451,077

     SHARES ISSUABLE UPON CONVERSION OF CONVERTIBLE
       SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES                           2,316,602     2,316,602     2,316,602      2,316,602

                                                       ------------------------------------------------------
                                                        10,869,886    10,786,960    10,840,750     10,767,679
                                                       ======================================================

   FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                          $0.33         $0.34         $1.02          $0.93
                                                       ======================================================
</TABLE>
Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Zions Capital Trust D



 EXHIBIT 4.10 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 ZIONS CAPITAL TRUST D 
 THIS
Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Zions Capital Trust D (the “Trust”), is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of the Trust, which was filed on August 2, 2002 (as
heretofore amended, the “Certificate of Trust”), with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.)(the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is Zions Capital Trust D. 
 2. Amendment to Certificate of Trust. The Certificate of Trust is hereby amended by amending and restating Section 2 thereof in its entirety as follows: 
 “2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal place of business in the State of Delaware
are: 
 BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware 
 White Clay Center, Route 273 
 Newark, Delaware 19711.” 
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective
upon filing. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this Certificate of Amendment in accordance with
Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act. 
  

			
	 BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,
 not in its
individual capacity, but solely as trustee

		
	By:	 	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo
		 	Name: Kristine K. Gullo
		 	Title:   Vice President
| (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                  as of December 31, 2005 and for the periods then ended. |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                    April 21, 2006 |   | /s/                  John                  Jenkins                                                          |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   |     John                  Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 3, 2015

No. 04-15-00114-CV

Hari Prasad KALAKONDA and Latha Kalakonda,

Appellants

v.

ASPRI INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-16394

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The court has received a letter dated May 21, 2015, from Hari Prasad Kalakonda and 

Latha Kalakonda, appellants in Appeal No. 04-15-00114-CV. This appeal is from the trial 

court’s final judgment confirming an arbitration award in trial court cause no. 2014-CI-16394. 

In the letter, appellants assert that the proceedings in a new trial court cause (no. 2015-

CI-01910) are integrally related to the issues in this appeal. Appellants request this court to 

review the actions of the trial court in trial court no. 2015-CI-01910 in this appeal from trial 

court no. 2014-CI-16394. 

We construe the letter as the Kalakondas’ notice of appeal from an order in trial court 

cause no. 2015-CI-01910 and a request to consolidate the new appeal with appeal no. 04-15-

00114-CV. 

We order the Clerk of this court to open a new appeal from trial court number 2015-CI01910, and to style the appeal, Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda, Appellants, v. 

Aspri Investments, LLC, Appellee. The new appeal will be Appeal No. 04-15-00340-CV. We 

order the Clerk to file copies of appellants’ May 21, 2015 letter and this order in both appeals 

and to send copies of the letter and this order to the trial court clerk for filing.

We order appellants must pay the appellate filing fee for the new appeal to the Clerk of 

this court by June 8, 2015. We further order appellants must file an amended notice of appeal in 

Appeal No. 04-15-00340-CV by June 8, 2015, identifying and stating the date of the judgment 
or order in trial court no. 2015-CI-01910 they are appealing from. If appellants fail to pay the 

appellate filing fee or to file an amended notice of appeal as ordered, the new appeal may be 

dismissed.

Appellants must also request the trial court clerk and court reporter to file the record in 

the new appeal. If the appeal is from an interlocutory order, the appeal is accelerated and the 

record is due ten days after the notice of appeal is filed. 

After a clerk’s record has been filed in the new appeal and if we determine we have 

jurisdiction over the appeal, the court will consider whether to consolidate the appeals for 

purposes of briefing and argument.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4626-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Mississippi (FEMA-4626-DR), dated October 22, 2021, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on January 14, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James R. Stephenson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Brett H. Howard as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-02231 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/18 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo VERDUZCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6326

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed February 10, 2017

Steven W. Creager, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eduardo Verduzco, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge

Eduardo Verduzco appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Verduzco pled guilty to maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Following the passage of Guidelines Amendment 782, U.S.S.G. Manual, app. C, amend. 782, Verduzco filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court concluded that Verduzco was eligible for a reduction but denied the motion based on his extensive disciplinary problems in prison. Verduzco now appeals.

“We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to deny a reduction of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1195 (10th Cir. 2012). A district court may modify the sentence of a defendant whose Guidelines range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. § ] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements is*487sued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). “[A]n ameliorative amendment to the Guidelines in no way creates a right to a sentence reduction.” Osborn, 679 F.3d at 1196 (emphasis omitted).

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Verduzco’s motion for a sentence reduction. District courts may consider post-sentencing conduct in deciding whether to reduce a sentence. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, app. n.1(B)(iii). Accordingly, the court acted well within its discretion in looking to Verduzco’s record of twenty-six disciplinary infractions during his incarceration, including multiple instances of assault, fighting, and possession of a dangerous weapon. See Osborn, 679 F.3d at 1196 (stating that “the presence of prison disciplinary reports on [a defendant’s] record” is “a proper basis for denying a motion under § 3582(c)(2)”).

AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
David C. KATAMAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4310

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 05, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.