alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21
  Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationAvasta, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaClearBlue Technologies Management, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Chicago-Wells, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Las Vegas, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Los Angeles, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Oak Brook, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Vienna, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Dallas, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/New York, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/San Francisco, Inc.
    
    DelawareConxion Corporation
    
    CaliforniaIntrepid Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawareJupiter Hosting, Inc.
    
    DelawareLexington Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawarenetASPx, LLC
    
    DelawareNaviSite India Private Limited
    
    IndiaNaviSite Europe Limited
    
    UK
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Ariba, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-142810, 333-117437, 333-107864, 333-84916, 333-73458, 333-61064, 333-46820, 333-33544, 333-95665, 333-89119 and 333-81773) of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated December 6, 2005 with respect to theconsolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 2005, which report appears in the September 30, 2007 annual report onForm 10-K of Ariba, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

November 13, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11057 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TAMMY JO MAYO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:97-CR-56-A-3

- - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tammy Jo Mayo appeals from her judgment of conviction and sentence. She argues that the district court erred by attributing to her 19 pounds of methamphetamine and that a comment by the district court at the sentencing hearing constituted a threat that chilled her defense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Affidavits and testimony by Mayo’s coconspirators support the district court’s decision to attribute to her 19 pounds of methamphetamine. See United States v. Maseratti , 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993).No. 97-11057 -2- Further, the district court’s comment at the sentencing hearing was a correct statement of the law and did not constitute a threat. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID HOVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5022

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00895-MMS, Judge Margaret M. 

Sweeney. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

 David Hover moves for an extension of time to file his 

reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. Hover's brief is due within 14 

days of the date of this order. 

Case: 14-5022 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2014
2 HOVER v. US

 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s27

Case: 14-5022 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2014
EX PARTE Jermaine MITCHELL

CR-16-0581

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permit issued.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On December 16, 2021, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on January 18, 2022, to:                

## Permit No. 2022-026

1. Brandon Savory 

Erika N. Davis,

Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2022-02877 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Michael Lamar FRANCIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-642

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### TRUMP TIGHT, LLC, d/b/a Trump Restaurant, and Lounge, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond R. BELL; Vincent B. Givens, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1697

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 13, 2017

Decided: May 4, 2017

Andrew T. Bodoh, THOMAS H. ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, Dillwyn, Virginia; William F. Etherington, Leslie A. Winneberger, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Trump Tight, LLC, appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and *202find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Trump Tight, LLC v. Bell,*188 F.Supp.3d 565 (E.D. Va. May 18, 2016). We deny as moot Appellees’ motion for leave to file supplemental material. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Order entered September 22 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00995
- CR No. 05
- 21
- 01076
- CR
MARTIN DAVILACONTRERAS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 2141089
- R

O RDER By this order, we remove this case from submission on October 5, 2022, and set the case for submission today, September 22 , 2022. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA PRESIDING JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7835-7836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02838]


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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of 2022 FASAB Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards 
Advisory Board (FASAB) will hold its meetings on the following dates 
throughout 2022, unless otherwise noted.

February 23-24, 2022
April 26-27, 2022
June 22-23, 2022
August 23-24, 2022
October 25-26, 2022
December 13-14, 2022

    The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to the 
following topics:

Accounting and Reporting of Government Land
Climate-Related Financial Reporting
Intangible Assets
Leases
Omnibus
Public-Private Partnerships
Reexamination of Existing Standards
Budgetary Information
Concepts Omnibus
Management's Discussion and Analysis
Software Technology
Any other topics as needed

    Unless otherwise noted, FASAB meetings begin at 9:00 a.m. and 
conclude before 5 p.m. and are held at the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Building at 441 G St. NW in Room 7C13. The 
February meeting will be held virtually.

ADDRESSES: Agendas, briefing materials, and teleconference information 
for virtual meetings will be available at https://www.fasab.gov/briefing-materials/ approximately one week before each meeting. If 
FASAB decides to hold its April, June, August, October, and/or December 
meetings virtually, this decision will be posted no later than one week 
before each meeting on the briefing materials website as well.
    Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board 
discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO Building security 
requires advance notice of your attendance. If you wish to attend a 
FASAB meeting, please register on our website at https://www.fasab.gov/pre-registration/ no later than 5 p.m. the Friday before the meeting to 
be observed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call 
(202) 512-7350.

[[Page 7836]]

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. app.).

    Dated: February 1, 2022.
Monica R. Valentine,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2022-02838 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### SOLARIA CORPORATION, Solaria India Private Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-1323

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 13, 2016

*798Donald C. Holmes, Jr., Donald C. Holmes and Associates, P.A., Greensboro, MD, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Michael Joseph Trevel-line, Law Office of Michael Trevelline, Washington, DC.

David Alan Levitt, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Steven J. Gillingham.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Moore, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6163 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6163

   To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise 
references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

   Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Molinaro, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Pocan, Mr. 
   McGovern, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Duncan, Mr. 
 Doggett, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise 
references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities.

    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 ``Words Matter for the District of 
Columbia Courts Act''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES.

    (a) Jurisdiction of United States District Court.--Section 11-
501(2)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking 
``substantially retarded persons'' and inserting ``persons with 
moderate intellectual disabilities''.
    (b) Jurisdiction of Superior Court.--Section 11-921(a)(4)(D), 
District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking 
``substantially retarded persons'' and inserting ``persons with 
moderate intellectual disabilities''.
    (c) Jurisdiction of Family Court.--Section 11-1101(a)(15), District 
of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking ``the at least 
moderately mentally retarded'' and inserting ``persons with moderate 
intellectual disabilities''.
                                 <all>
```
Arthur D. BOATRIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D16-5571

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 5, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 29, 2018

Arthur D. Boatright, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED . *See**State v. Sholl* , 18 So.3d 1158, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that the protection against double jeopardy did not entitle defendant to pretrial dismissal of charges based upon claim that multiple charges violated his protection against multiple punishments for the same offense).

Rowe, Ray, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Avery C. HAWKINS and Olga Hawkins, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2438

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Paris WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11567 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Carly Elizabeth Barton, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, James Paris Williams raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), and *United States v. Trejo,*610 F.3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In *Alcantar,*we rejected the argument that *Nat'l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,*567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), affect ed our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 733 F.3d at 146. In *Trejo,*we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was raised for the first time in this court. 610 F.3d at 313.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Richard C. FOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Barack Hussein Obama, Past President of the United States of America; US Department of Justice; US Federal Communication Commission, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1447

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Richard C. Foy, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judge's.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard C. Foy seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Foy’s complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan*Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Foy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

*DISMISSED*
#### The Daniels Company, Contractors, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Nevling.

*277Argued April 20, 1956.

Before Stern, C. J., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*Carl A.*Belin, for appellant.

*Robert V. Maine,*with him *William- T. Davis*and *Nevling & Davis,*for appellee.

May 21, 1956 :

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The sole question in this case is whether an additional provision in a written contract for the sale and purchase of a coal-washing machine (which was constructed, accepted and paid for) constituted an option or a definite undertaking on the part of the buyer to purchase two additional machines within a specified period. The learned court below, in an opinion to which we can add nothing, construed the provision to be an option, which the buyer never exercised. The judgment will therefore be affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Pentz reported in 5 D. & C. 2d 314.

In view of the action which we thus take, the appellee’s motion to suppress portions of the appellant’s brief, which was renewed at bar, becomes moot and will be denied *pro forma.*We are not to be considered, *278however, as approving the appellant’s inclusion in its brief of factual matter not appearing of record. Tbe action was instituted on tbe appellant’s petition for a declaratory judgment to wbicb an answer witb new matter was filed, and tbe controversy was disposed of, without testimony, on tbe appellant’s motion for judgment on tbe pleadings. It is patent that tbe appellant’s brief contains much extraneous matter wbicb should not have been included therein.

Judgment affirmed.
#### IN RE: Christopher FRANK, Movant

No. 17-30172

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 10, 2017

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Frank, federal prisoner # 01160-748, seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence to life imprisonment for conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. A jury convicted Frank of that offense and two firearms charges in 1999, and he received a concurrent five-year prison sentence and a consecutive ten-year prison sentence for the firearms offenses. His life sentence resulted from the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 and the cross-reference found at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; the district court found that various murders committed in furtherance of the conspiracy constituted relevant conduct for purposes of sentencing.

Frank argues that authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion is warranted in light of *Miller v. Alabama,*567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), which established a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review in *Montgomery v. Louisiana,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736-37, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). He contends that *Miller*renders his life sentence unconstitutional because (1) he was sentenced under a mandatory scheme to life in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) he was a juvenile— between the ages of 14 and 17 — when four of the murders in question were allegedly committed, and he was a “young adolescent” — ages 18 and 19 — when the other murders were committed; and (3) the district court did not make an individualized sentencing decision. We will grant authorization if, as relevant here, Frank makes a prima facie showing that his proposed claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. § 2255(h)(2); *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (3)(C).

Regardless of whether the guidelines-derived mandatory life sentence fell within the Supreme Court’s limitations, *Miller*is unhelpful to Frank. The relevant conduct that formed the basis for the cross-reference to § 2A1.1 included murders that occurred after he had attained age 18. Thus, Frank has not demonstrated that *Miller*entitles him to authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. *See*§ 2255(h)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion is DENIED. Frank’s motion for the appointment of a neuropsychological expert is also DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonel ARTIAGA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51384 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leonel Artiaga-Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Leonel Artiaga-Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Artiaga-Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appel*348late review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.