alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, HOLIFIELD, and HOUTZ

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

David C. BELTRAN

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202000204

Decided: 19 May 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Aaron C. Rugh

Sentence adjudged 28 May 2020 by a general court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement 

for 18 months, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 

and a dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.
United States v. Beltran, NMCCA No. 202000204

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 859, 866.

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37316-37317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18606]


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

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATES: July 20-21, 1998.

PLACE: ARRB, 600 E Street, NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: July 20: 9:00 a.m. Closed, July 21: 10:00 a.m. Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
Closed Meeting:
    1. Review and Accept Minutes of Closed Meeting
    2. Review of Assassination Records
    3. Other Business
Open Meeting:
    1. Discussion of Final Report
    2. Review and Accept Minutes of July 8, 1998 Open Meeting
    3. Other Business

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eileen Sullivan, Press Officer, 
600 E Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington,

[[Page 37317]]

DC 20530. Telephone: (202) 724-0088; Fax: (202) 724-0457.
T. Jeremy Gunn,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-18606 Filed 7-8-98; 2:23 pm]
BILLING CODE 6118-01-P
Exhibit 12.1

ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

(In thousands)

Statement of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges



|                                                    |  |      |         |      |   |         |  |      |         |      |   |        |  |   |       
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ------- | ---- | - | ------- |  | ---- | ------- | ---- | - | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                                    |  | 2009 |         | 2008 |   | 2007    |  | 2006 |         | 2005
|                                                    |  |      |         |      |  
|Income from continuingoperations beforeincome taxes |  | $    | 120,924 |      | $ | 140,455 |  | $    | 110,480 |      | $ | 70,386 |  | $ | 64,136
|                                                    |  |      |         |      |  
|Fixed charges1                                      |  |      |         |      |   |         |  |      |         |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Interest expense                                    |  |      | 28,689  |      |   | 29,922  |  |      | 35,299  |      |   | 21,288 |  |   | 18,157
|Amortization of debtissuance cost                   |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   | 172    |  |   | 56    
|Interest included inrental expense                  |  |      | 5,310   |      |   | 5,211   |  |      | 4,134   |      |   | 3,089  |  |   | 2,734 
|                                                   
|                                                    |  |      |         |      |  
|Total                                               |  | $    | 33,999  |      | $ | 35,133  |  | $    | 39,433  |      | $ | 24,549 |  | $ | 20,947
|                                                   
|                                                    |  |      |         |      |  
|Earnings2                                           |  | $    | 154,923 |      | $ | 175,588 |  | $    | 149,913 |      | $ | 94,935 |  | $ | 85,083
|                                                   
|                                                    |  |      |         |      |  
|Ratio of earnings available tocover fixed charges   |  |      | 4.6     |      |   | 5.0     |  |      | 3.8     |      |   | 3.9    |  |   | 4.1   



|1 | Fixed charges consist of interest on indebtedness and amortization of debt issuance cost plus that portion of lease rental expense representative of the interest
factor.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2 | Earnings consist of income from continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL BAILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10427 

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00207-GEB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Michael Bailey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt and 

distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-10427 

Bailey argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address 

his request for a downward variance or departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 to reflect

his health problems and traumatic brain injury. We review for plain error, see 

United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and 

conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered 

Bailey’s sentencing arguments, specifically noted his age and poor health, and 

adequately explained the low-end sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 

984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Bailey also contends that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

unreasonable in light of his mitigating factors and the fact that, in his view, the 

Guidelines overinflate the sentencing ranges for child pornography offenses. The

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the 

videos Bailey collected and his admitted “sexting” with minor girls. 

AFFIRMED.
No. 10-10693.

#### Jerry W. Armstrong, Petitioner v. Gerald C. Benito.

565 U.S. 844, 132 S. Ct. 160,

181 L. Ed. 2d 74,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6484,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-11242.

#### Marie W. Daniel, Petitioner v. Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc., et al.

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

181 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6569,

October 3, 2011.

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



EXHIBIT 32.B CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005,
of El Paso Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, D. Dwight Scott, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ D. Dwight ScottD. Dwight ScottExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 5, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Corporation and will be retained by El Paso Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Form 10-K), I, Robert D. George, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
               15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                        |     |                                                                                 
|----------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  January 6, 2005 | By: | /s/ Robert D. George                                                            
|                        |     |                                                                                 
|                        |     | Robert D. GeorgeVice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer

---
No. 10-10674.

#### Stephen Patrick Wood, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 157,

181 L. Ed. 2d 73,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6296.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**CH 2**

**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.23. APPENDIX 8.23**

**PASSING ORDER**[footnoteRef:1] [1:  Entries from the remarks field shall be made only when it is necessary to report that data when it is entered on the requisition.  In all such instances, rp 3 of the DIC shall identify the document as containing exception data and the passing order shall not be transmitted.] 

AP3.23-1

1

APPENDIX 3.23

AP8.23-1

APPENDIX 8.23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000032621
<NAME> EMERSON RADIO CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                           2,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,884
<INVENTORY>                                     11,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,207
<PP&E>                                           4,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,043
<BONDS>                                         20,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,713
<COMMON>                                           510
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,920
<SALES>                                        157,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,730
<CGS>                                          142,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,165
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,430)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,430)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00097- CR

Daniel Mendoza, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ASTROP CO UNTY, 21ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 14,2 05, H ONO RAB LE CHRI STO P HER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Daniel Mendoza’s co u n s el has filed a mot ion to dismiss this appea l and

to withdraw from her repr esenta ti o n o f appellant. Mendoza ag ree d to the form and substance of
the motion with his signa ture. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a)

. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

J eff Rose, J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Apr il 18, 2012
Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  382,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    119,178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               642,492
<PP&E>                                       4,805,293
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,861,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,744,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          757,975
<BONDS>                                        956,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    175,000
<COMMON>                                       673,478
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,744,577
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,142,625
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,996,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (11,222)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,228
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,738
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,560)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,096)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GLORIA S. GRAHAM, as Trustee of the WILLIAM J. GRAHAM TRUST 

DATED JUNE 16, 1968, et al.,

Appellants, 

v.

RANDY E. VIRGIL, SR., as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF 

RANDY E. VIRGIL, JR., et al.,

Appellees. 

No. 4D21-877

[September 1, 2021] 

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. CACE 17-005292. 

Jack R. Reiter and Sydney M. Feldman of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami,

for appellants. 

Todd R. Falzone and Josiah D. Graham of Kelley Uustal, 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellees. 

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to transfer 

venue from Broward County to Palm Beach County based on forum non 

conveniens.1 

Appellants presented overwhelming evidence in this negligent security 

case showing the incident at issue took place in Palm Beach County on 

property located in Palm Beach County. Moreover, all the parties and 

nearly all the witnesses are located in Palm Beach County, and all of the 

factors enumerated in section 47.122, Florida Statutes, weighed strongly 

in favor of transfer.

————————————————————————————————————

1 The nonfinal order fixes the locus of the action in Broward County and 

“concern[s] venue,” thus making it appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A). See Dep’t of Agric. v. Middleton, 24 So. 3d 624, 626–27 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
2

The trial court recognized that the motion to transfer had merit, but 

denied the motion “without prejudice” because it wanted the parties to 

attend non-binding arbitration. This was an abuse of discretion. 

See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Est. of Chavez ex rel. Hernandez, 8 So. 3d 

1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that the trial court abused its 

discretion in not transferring the action from Miami-Dade County to Lee 

County in a case where the accident occurred in Lee County,

the individuals involved in the accident resided in Lee County at the time 

of the accident, and the eyewitnesses and first responders resided in Lee 

County).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court 

to grant the motion to transfer venue.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DLA Distribution Korea

Lt. Col. Nathan Hadlock

United States Army

Commander

Lt. Col. Nathan Hadlock took command of Defense Logistics Agency 

Distribution Korea June 16, 2022. He received his commission as an odnance 

officer with branch detail, armor, from Norwich University in 2003. He is a 

graduate of the Armor Officer Basic and Combined Logistics Captains Career 

Course U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Airborne School 

and the United States Airforce Joint Air Operational Command nad Control 

Course. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Peace, War and Diplomacy from 

Norwich University.

Before becoming commander, Hadlock was the airlift officer of the 5th 

Battlefield Coordination Detachment at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

His previous assignments include armor platoon leader, Company Executive Officer, for the 1-72 Army Batallion 

at Camp Casey, Korea, military advisor for the 3-25IA Military Transition Team at the Forward Operating Base in 

Warhorse, Iraq, company commander with the 61st Maintenance Company at Camp Stanley, Korea, RC-S LNO 

and BDE maintenance officer at Kandahar Air Force Base in Afghanistan and Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, 

Distribution mobility chief for 8A G4, at U.S, Army Garrison in Yongsan, Korea, support operations officer and 

battalion executive officer for the 498th for the Combat Sustainment Support Battalion at Camp Carroll, Korea, 

secretary of general staff and plans officer with the 3rd Sustainment Command at Fort Liberty, North Carolina and 

plans offier with the 19th Sustainment Command at Camp Henry, Korea.

Hadlock’s awards and decorations include a Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak 

Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Achievement Medal with five 

Oak Leaf Clusters, NATO Medal, the Combat Action Badge, the Army Parachutist Badge, the order of Saint 

Barbara, and the Ordnance Order of Samuel Sharpe.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18171]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-277-000]


OkTex Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 30, 1998, OkTex Pipeline Company (OkTex), 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with a 
proposed effective date of August 1, 1998.
    OkTex states that the filing is being in compliance with the 
Commission's directives in Order No. 587-G.
    OkTex states that the tariff sheets reflect the changes to OkTex's 
tariff that result from the Gas Industry Standards Board's (GISB) 
consensus standards that were adopted by the Commission in its April 
16, 1998 Order No. 587-G in Docket No. RM96-1-007. OkTex further states 
that Order No. 587-G contemplates that OkTex will implement the GISB 
consensus standards for August 1998 business, and that the tariff 
sheets therefore reflect an effective date of August 1, 1998.
    OkTex states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18171 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M