alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-5403.

#### Merideth Myles, aka Meredith Myles, Petitioner v. Maryland.

565 U.S. 905, 132 S. Ct. 306,

181 L. Ed. 2d 187,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5721.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 197 Md. App. 759.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Wade, Petitioner,*

No. 91688-8.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 69527-4-I, March 30, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 749. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
# NYTS02FMTS

||
||
No. 11-4.

#### Wojciech Czarniecki, Petitioner v. City of Chicago, Illinois.

565 U.S. 878, 132 S. Ct. 241,

181 L. Ed. 2d 137,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6800.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 633 F.3d 545.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Form 10-K/A (the "Report") of Jo-Ann Stores,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending February 1, 2003, I, Alan Rosskamm,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.



Dated: September 9, 2003


                                     /s/ Alan Rosskamm
                                     -----------------
                                     Alan Rosskamm,
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
S16Y0976.

#### IN THE MATTER OF NATHAN E. HARDWICK IV.

(791 SE2d 5)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the State Bar’s request to temporarily suspend Respondent Nathan E. Hardwick IV (State Bar No. 325686) until further order of this Court. The Bar states that Hardwick has been charged with multiple felonies in Criminal Case No. 1:16-CR-00065-ELR-CMS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and that, as a condition of his bond, Hardwick has been ordered not to practice law. The Bar represents that Hardwick has no objection to this request.

Based on the present record, this Court agrees that the Bar’s unopposed request should be granted. See In *the Matter of Smith,*297 Ga. 46 (771 SE2d 901) (2015); *In the Matter of Swank,*288 Ga. 479 (704 SE2d 807) (2011). Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Nathan E. Hardwick IV be suspended from the practice of law in this State during the pendency of the criminal charges against him and until further order of this Court. Hardwick is hereby directed to notify the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel in writing within seven days of any final disposition of the criminal charges in the district court. Hardwick is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Suspension until further order of the Court.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*662Decided September 12, 2016.

*Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Edward T. M. Garland,*for Hardwick.

*Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittel-man, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.
No. 10-1248.

#### Telesaurus VPC, LLC, Petitioner v. Randy Power, et al.

565 U.S. 816, 132 S. Ct. 95,

181 L. Ed. 2d 24,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6889.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 623 F.3d 998.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**By Principal Financial Officer**

I, Craig R. Jones, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Electro Rent Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

A signed originalof this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. 

Dated: August 8, 2011
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report Under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Lime Energy Co. and its subsidiaries.
 /s/ David R. Asplund

David R. AsplundChief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2009
No. 10-11240.

#### Raymundo Arias-Ceja, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 874, 132 S. Ct. 232,

181 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6712.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 569.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 

TO THE 
 MALIBU BOATS,
INC. 
 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE to the Malibu Boats, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of June 24, 2014.

 Pursuant to Section 16.2 of the Plan, and effective as of the date set forth above, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Section 5.4 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

  

	 	2.	The following defined terms are hereby deleted from the Plan: Annual Retainer, Board Term, and Election Notice. 

  

	 	3.	The last sentence of Section 14.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 


“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, (1) Award Agreements shall not be required for any awards issued
pursuant to the Company’s Stock-For-Fees Program established under the Company’s Directors’ Compensation Policy or for any Awards that are fully vested on the applicable grant date, and (2) the failure to issue an Award Agreement
shall not invalidate an Award.”
From: Howard L. Gilberg [mailto:Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com]

Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:53 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Barnett, Keith; Fruh, Steve; Tsirigotis, Peter; Telander, Jeff; Connie O'Neal; Eric 

Astrachan; Robert Hurt; Steve Wiederwax; Steve Willis

Subject: Challenge to the Inclusion of Stonepeak Plant 2005 Results in MACT Database and MACT 

Floor for the Ceramic Tile Industry

Sharon:

The TCNA submits the attached report technically challenging the inclusion of Stonepeak 2005 

stack testing results in the MACT database for the ceramic tile industry and in particular, in the 

MACT Floor. 

As Mr. Telander is aware, TCNA asserted this challenge previously based on the version of this 

report submitted to EPA by Stonepeak and provided to us. In response to our first challenge, 

EPA sought and received a second version of the Stonepeak report and verbally dismissed our 

first challenge as no longer applicable.

Mike Hartman, the author of the attached report, is an expert recognized by EPA and industry 

alike in measurement of acid stack gases. EPA has previously accepted his reports in the context 

of its development of the MACT standard for the tile industry, and we see no reason EPA should 

not accept his current technical report challenging the Stonepeak 2005 stack testing results.

We look forward to EPA’s review of the attached report and affirmative response to it.

In the meantime, can you provided an update on where your office stands with respect to the 

proposed subcategorization of wall tile production?

Thank you.

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214.692-0009 - phone

214.692-6610 - fax

gilberg@gsfpc.com

www.theenvironmentallawfirm.com
# Schedule B6

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12SPE4A6-15-R-0340		&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Schedule B6
# Kitting NSNs
No. 11-8.

#### MIG, Inc., fka Metromedia International Group, Inc., Petitioner v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P.

565 U.S. 878, 132 S. Ct. 241,

181 L. Ed. 2d 137,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5473.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 408.
DLA Distribution Yokosuka, Japan

Cmdr. Ian G. Iliff

Supply Corps, United States Navy

Commander

Navy Cmdr. Ian G. Iliff, a native of Cumberland, Maryland, took command of 

Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Yokosuka, Japan, June 23, 2022. Iliff is a 2003 

graduate of Frostburg State University, with a Bachelor Degree in Business Finance. 

He earned a Masters of Business Administration from Emory University, Goizueta 

School of Business. He also completed an executive leadership program at the University of Virginia, Darden School of Business. 

His operational assignments include: supply officer, USS Augusta (SSN 710); food 

service officer, assistant supply officer, hazardous materials officer, aviation stores 

officer, USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6); aviation stores officer, USS Essex (LHD 

2); and deputy logistics director, Joint Special Operations Task Force – Philippines. 

His shore assignments include: Fleet Logistics Support Officer at CTF-53 /COMLOGNAVFORCENT, Manama, Bahrain; Navy Supply Corps intern at Navy Supply Information Systems Activity (NAVSISA), Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Engines Integrated Weapons Systems Team Branch Head and E-2/C-2 IWST director 

at NAVSUP Weapons System Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; aviation readiness analyst and readiness division director, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N80); and N41 Logistics & Readiness director, Naval Forces Europe/Naval 

Forces Africa/Commander 6th Fleet.

He is a qualified Submarine Warfare Supply Corps Officer, Navy Expeditionary Supply Corps Officer, Surface Warfare Supply Corps Officer and Naval Aviation Supply Officer. 

Iliff ’s personal decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine 

Corps Commendation Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal and various campaign citations.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1797]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C-3723]


Boeing Co.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order involves the Boeing Company's 
acquisition of Rockwell International Corporation's aerospace and 
defense business and the competition in the markets for high altitude 
endurance unmanned air vehicles (``UAVs'') and space launch vehicles. 
The consent order, among other things, gives Teledyne Ryan, the prime 
contractor of one team, the opportunity to replace Boeing on that team, 
thereby protecting competition in the UAVs market. The consent order 
also establishes a ``firewall'' to prevent the flow of competitively 
sensitive information between Boeing's team and a division of Rockwell 
International Corporation's aerospace and defense business that is 
currently providing wings to the other teams, establishes a firewall 
that prevents Boeing from making any space launch vehicle 
manufacturer's non-public information available to its launch vehicle 
division, and allows Boeing to use such information only in its 
capacity as a propulsion system provider.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued March 5, 1997.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Cary, FTC/H-374, Washington, DC 
20580. (202) 326-3741.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Monday, December 16, 1996, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 66038, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of The Boeing Company, for the 
purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested parties were given 
sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, suggestions or objections 
regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, modified as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in 
disposition of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1797 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### *State, Respondent, v. Oakes, Petitioner,*

No. 92001-0.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 66229-5-I, May 18, 2015, 18,2015,187 187 Wn. App. 1028. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00182-CR

David Cepeda JONES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1994-CR-5367W

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 13, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence on August 5, 1997. Assuming appellant had timely filed 

a motion for new trial, the latest possible date for appellant to have filed his notice of appeal was 

November 3, 1997. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). On February 22, 2011, appellant filed a pro se 

notice of appeal. On March 9, 2011, this court issued an order directing appellant to show cause 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a written 
04-11-00182-CR

- 2 -

response that does not provide a basis upon which this court may exercise jurisdiction over this 

appeal.

A late notice of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction in a criminal case only if 

(1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, (2) a 

motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within the fifteen-day grace period, 

and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 

519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). This court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal 

unless a motion for extension of time is filed in the appellate court within fifteen (15) days after 

the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. When a notice of appeal 

and a motion for extension of time are not filed within the fifteen-day grace period, the appellate 

court lacks jurisdiction. Id.; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; but see Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (an out-of-time appeal from a final felony 

conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court pursuant to article 

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0477

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TAMMY JANE SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Gregory R. Todd , Distric t Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 21 2021

07/21/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0477
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          20,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    420,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               490,100
<PP&E>                                         270,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 701,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,200
<BONDS>                                        182,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   701,400
<SALES>                                      1,242,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,242,900
<CGS>                                          678,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,208,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
        

</TABLE>
Order entered July 30, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00023
- CR ABEY BELETTE GIRMA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. F12
- 59177
- T



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appell ant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This app eal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
No. 10-10955.

#### Calvin Paul Stewart, Petitioner v. Vernice Trease.

565 U.S. 859, 132 S. Ct. 194,

181 L. Ed. 2d 101,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6294.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Utah denied.
No. 10-6747.

#### Antwan Tann, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1026, 131 S. Ct. 545,

178 L. Ed. 2d 408,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8392.

November 1, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 10-1454.

#### Jessica Lauren Wicky, Petitioner v. Cristano C. Oxonian, Personal Representative of the Estate of Maria I. Oxonian, et al.

565 U.S. 822, 132 S. Ct. 109,

181 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5408.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 54 So. 3d 983.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Thomas L. Monahan IIIThomas L. Monahan III
Chief Executive Officer
November 9, 2007/s/ Timothy R. YostTimothy R. Yost
Chief Financial Officer
November 9, 2007
 21
No. 10-11231.

#### Lorinda J. H., Petitioner v. Winnebago County Department of Health and Human Services.

565 U.S. 874, 132 S. Ct. 231,

181 L. Ed. 2d 129,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6449.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, denied.
*DLM 4000.25-4, August 15, 2018*

*Change 5*

**AP6. APPENDIX 6**

**X12 CONTROL STRUCTURES AND SEPARATORS**

AP6.1.******GENERAL

As noted in Chapter 5, X12 Control Structures and Segment/Element Separators are defined in the following tables:

	AP6.1.1.  X12 Control Structures.  The approved Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) ***Accredited Standards Committee (ASC)***X12 Control Structures are defined in Table A6.T1.

	AP6.1.2.  Segment/Element Separators.  The approved DLMS X12 Separators are defined in A6.T2:[footnoteRef:4] [4:  Ibid] 

AP6-1	APPENDIX 6
No. 10-10718.

#### William Jermichael Carter, Petitioner v. Jeri-Ann Sherry, Warden.

565 U.S. 846, 132 S. Ct. 163,

181 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6318.

October 3, 2011.

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