alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-7590.

#### Mark James Konsavich, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1156, 131 S. Ct. 951,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 487.

178 L. Ed. 2d 785,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 474.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Jeffrey A. Kupp, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Inet Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 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 aforementioned Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jeffrey A. Kupp

---

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



August 5, 2003
302 Certification

EXHIBIT 31.1

Date: May 13, 2004

     I, William V. Walton, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GiveMePower
Corp.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

          (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];

          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

                                               /s/ William V. Walton
                                               ---------------------
                                                   William V. Walton
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-6432.

#### Daniel Wright, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 605,

178 L. Ed. 2d 441,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8917.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
# K2TIPV52872169

# K2TIPV52872171

# K2TIPV52872177

# K2TIPV52872181

# K2TIPV52872182

# K2TIPV52872183

# K2TIPV52872184

# K2TIPV52872189

# K2TIPV52872190

# K2TIPV52872197

# K2TIPV52872203

# K2TIPV52872205

# K2TIPV52922006

# K2TIPV52922015

# K2TIPV53282124

# K2TIPV62781567

# K2TIPV70432936

# K2TIPV71212029

# K2TIPV71372220

# K2TIPV71372221

# K2TIPV71422058

# K2TIPV71422068

# K2TIPV71422093

# K2TIPV71422192

# K2TIPV71422231

# K2TIPV80522997

# K2TIPV80582021

# K2TIPV80582024

# K2TIPV82562067

# K2TIPV92092176

# KTIPV616121219

# KTIPV616121220

# KTIPV616121225

# KTIPV616121232

# KTIPV616121235

# KTIPV616121236

# KTIPV616121240

# KTIPV616121241

# KTIPV616121242

# KTIPV616121243

# KTIPV616121251

# KTIPV616121253

# KTIPV616121254

# KTIPV616121256

# KTIPV616121284

# KTIPV616121285

# KTIPV616121288

# KTIPV616121292

# KTIPV616121322

# KTIPV712122056
No. 10-7599.

#### Brett C. Hay, Petitioner v. J. L. D.

562 U.S. 1202, 131 S. Ct. 1046,

178 L. Ed. 2d 868,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1008.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV, denied.
# Scholarships available for students of Defense Logistics Agency employees

/ Published Feb. 26, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
The DLA Foundation is offering scholarships to students who have a close family connection to a current or past civilian or military Defense Logistics Agency employee.

Scholarship applications will be accepted beginning February 15. The application period will close on April 1. Award announcement will occur by May 30.

Twenty scholarships of $1,500 each will be awarded. Merit and financial need are the main criteria upon which applications will be judged. A child, stepchild, grandchild, niece or nephew of a current or former DLA military or civilian employ can apply.

Applicants must be a high school senior or college student who will attend an undergraduate school or trade/technical school as a full-time student in academic year 2016-2017 (12 semester hours). Appointees to military service academies are not eligible.

Students must also have at least a minimum 2.0 grade point average. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, Student Aid Report will be used to determine financial need.

Additionally, a $2,500 scholarship will be awarded through the Major General Charles R. Henry Scholarship to a current or former DLA military employee or a spouse or child of a current or former DLA military employee. Preference is given to wounded warriors.

Application forms and documents are available at https://dlafoundation.awardspring.com/. 

The DLA Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization not affiliated with the Department of Defense.
No. 10-6615.

#### Mohammad Salameh, Petitioner v. Peter Carlson, et al.

562 U.S. 1033, 131 S. Ct. 576,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8721.

178 L. Ed. 2d 421,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 678.
# C_2015127EN.01002201.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission

(Case T-45/13) (1)

1

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements relating to the FIRST, FutureNEM and sISI projects - Actions for annulment and compensation - Reclassification of the actions - Admissibility - Suspension of payments - Deadline for providing the audit report - Dissemination of information to third parties))

(2015/C 127/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Rose Vision, SL (Seseña, Spain); and Julián Seseña (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñiz Bernuy and A. Alonso Villa, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and X. M. García García, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, action for annulment of the Commission’s letter by which it suspended the payments under grant agreement No 246910, relating to the FutureNEM project, and of financial audit report 11-INFS-025, on the basis of which it adopted that measure, and, secondly, action for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the Commission’s conduct, up to a maximum of EUR 5 8 54  264, without prejudice to the damages which may be assessed in the course of the present proceedings as well as interest accrued.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rose Vision, SL and Mr Julián Seseña to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rose Vision, SL and Mr Julián Seseña to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

1

---
# C_2013260EN.01004901.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/49

---

Action brought on 17 July 2013 — ultra air GmbH v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)

(Case T-377/13)

2013/C 260/87

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2013 in Case R 1100/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2013 in Case R 1100/2011-4;

| — | Order OHIM, and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH should it participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM, and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH should it participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark No 7 480 585

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute ground of invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed; Community trade mark declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| | Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| | Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
NUMBER 13-07-00298-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION AND JOHN THOMAS MURPHY, Appellants,

v.

OTILA CUELLAR, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF RUDOLPH GONZALEZ, DECEASED, Appellee.

On appeal from the 105 District Court th

of Kleberg County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. The parties

have reached an agreement with regard to the disposition of the matters currently on

appeal. The parties request this Court set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard
2

to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance

with the parties’ agreement. Without passing on the merits of the case, we set aside the

trial court’s judgment and REMAND this case to the trial court for further proceedings in

accordance with the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d). The

parties’ joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, each party is ORDERED to bear

their own costs. 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 15th day of January, 2009.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2885 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program 

to promote and encourage collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs and nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher learning that provide administrative assistance to veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2019 

Mr. WITTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

a pilot program to promote and encourage collaboration 

between the Department of Veterans Affairs and nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher learning 

that provide administrative assistance to veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Collaboration 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2885 IH

1 SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM ON COLLABORATION WITH NON2 PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

4 shall carry out a two-year pilot program to promote and 

5 encourage collaboration between the Department of Vet6 erans Affairs and nonprofit organizations and institutions 

7 of higher learning. In carrying out the pilot program, the 

8 Secretary shall emphasize collaboration with— 

9 (1) veterans service organizations that provide 

10 personnel with appropriate credentials to assist vet11 erans in filing claims and appeals with the Depart12 ment for disability compensation; and 

13 (2) educational institutions that provide pro 

14 bono legal assistance to veterans. 

15 (b) METRICS.—The Secretary shall establish metrics 

16 to determine which organizations and institutions provide 

17 the best service to veterans and seek to encourage such 

18 organizations and institutions to participate in the pilot 

19 program. 

20 (c) LOCATION.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

21 pilot program in States with the highest veteran popu22 lations, as determined by the Secretary. 

23 (d) USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.—In carrying out the 

24 pilot program, the Secretary shall use social media to pro25 mote the collaboration efforts carried out under the pilot 

26 program and to notify veterans of such collaborations. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2885 IH

1 Quarterly reports will be provided to members of the Vet2 erans’ Affairs Committee that document the reach of the 

3 social media efforts and the number of veterans who use 

4 the program. 

5 (e) REPORTS.—Not later than 30 days after the end 

6 of a fiscal quarter, the Secretary shall submit to the Com7 mittees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House 

8 of Representatives a report on the pilot program, including 

9 the use of social media under subsection (d) and the num10 ber of veterans who receive administrative assistance from 

11 organizations and institutions through the program. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 25, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00152-CR
No. 05-14-00153-CR
No. 05-14-00154-CR

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-00676-I, F13-00677-I, F13-58422-I



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and this decision be certified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
140152F.U05In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant

No. 05-14-00152-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-00676-I. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers.

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered July 25, 2014In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant

No. 05-14-00153-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-00677-I. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers.

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered July 25, 2014In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant

No. 05-14-00154-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-58422-I. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers.

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered July 25, 2014
ADC 42 

Attachment

Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 42

Removal of the Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Exclusion 

for Navy Manual Ships

1. Originator:

a. Service/Agency: Navy.

b. Originator: Mr. Michael J. Morra, Naval Supply Systems Command

2. Functional Area: Supply

3. Requested Change:

a. Title: Removal of the Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Exclusion for 

Navy Manual Ships,

b. Description of Change: This administrative change removes the MRA exclusion for 

Navy manual ships.

c. Procedures: 

(1) Revise DoD 4000.25-2-M, Military Standard Transaction Reporting and 

Accounting Procedures (MILSTRAP), as being amended by Formal Change 5, 

chapter 6, section C (Exclusions), to delete paragraph C.9 as follows:

"9. Navy manual ships."

(2) A corresponding change will be made to DoD 4000.25-M, Defense Logistics 

Management System (DLMS), volume 2.

4. Reason for Change: Per the Naval Supply Systems Command November 13, 2000, 

electronic mail (enclosure), Navy has determined that an exclusion from MRA procedures for 

Navy manual ships is no longer required. All Navy afloat units operate under one of several 

systems and have 100% MRA capability.

5. Impact: 

a. Publications: DoD 4000.25-2-M (MILSTRAP), DoD 4000.25-M (DLMS), and 

Service/Agency publications as applicable.

b. Systems: No known system impact. 
From: Michael_J_Morra

Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:21 PM

To: johnson, maryjane

Subject: MRA Management Information Report

MaryJane,

The Navy no longer requires the exclusion rule.

Please consider this email as the official response.

VR

Michael J. Morra

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

Michael,

If the exclusion for Navy manual ships is no longer necessary for MRA procedures, please send 

me a letter to that effect, and I can make an administrative change to MILSTRAP, chapter 6, to 

remove the exclusion.

Mary Jane Johnson

MILSTRAP Administrator

Supply PRC Co-Chair

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

David_S_Wismer

Subject: Re: FW: MRA Management Information Report

Mary Jane,

All of our afloat units operate under one of several “systems” and have 100% Material Receipt 

Acknowledging capability. So my recommendation is to strike the exclusion, unless Michael 

disagrees.

Ross

“johnson, maryjane ” <maryjane_johnson@hq.dla.mil> on 10/27/2000 10:21:34 AM

Subject: FW: MRA Management Information Report

Michael and Ross,

Re: the email below

Please advise DAASC how Navy manual ships are identified, for the purpose of the exclusion to 

the MRA procedures.

Thanks,

Mary Jane

 ADC 42

Enclosure
No. 10-7439.

#### John Rogers, Petitioner v. Robert Horel, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1184, 131 S. Ct. 1005,

178 L. Ed. 2d 836,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 766.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Federal Register: January 24, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 15)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4094]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja11-31]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, February 4, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-1522 Filed 1-20-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```