alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-4783

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD OSCAR HAYES, a/k/a Duke,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-78-F)

Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary B. Zimmerman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. John

Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Oscar Hayes appeals the district court order denying

his motion to dismiss the indictment because it violated his protection against double jeopardy. We review the district court’s

factual findings for clear error and the conclusions of law de

novo. United States v. Green, 139 F.3d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1998).

We find that the district court did not err by finding that there

were two separate agreements to distribute marijuana in Pennsylvania. See United States v. Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184, 1190 (4th Cir.

1988); United States v. MacDougall, 790 F.2d 1135, 1144-46 (4th

Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Resources:

htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martn_Luther_King_Jr.

htps://www.defenseculture.mil/Human-Relatons-Toolkit/Special-Observ

ances/#martn-luther-king-jr-birthday

King was also

he

through nonviolent resistance.

Washington, where

inequality

on

1963

March

won

Have

In

combatng racial

“I

Lincoln Memorial.

Prize for

one of the leaders of the

delivered his

iconic a Dream” speech on the steps of the

1964, King the Nobel

Peace

Martn Luther King the chief spokesperson

for nonviolent actvism in the civil rights

movement, which protested racial discriminaton in

federal and oversaw the 1955

Montgomery bus boycot and later became

of

the

Southern Christan Leadership

Conference (SCLC).

Jr. was

president the

state law. He

President Ronald Reagan signed Martn Luther King,

Jr. Day into law in 1983, and it was frst observed

three years later. At frst, some states resisted

observing the holiday as such, giving it alternatve

names or combining it with other holidays. It was

ofcially observed in all 50 states for the frst tme in

2000.

With the help movement led

to major legislatve Act of

1964, Votng

rights

Housing Act of 1963.

of King, the civil

gains in the Civil Rights

Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair

King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis,

mourning, as well as anger leading to riots in many

U.S. cites. King was posthumously awarded the

Presidental Medal of Freedom in 1977 and the

Congressional Gold Medal in 2003.

Tennessee, where he was shot while standing on his

hotel balcony. His death was followed by natonal

the

of

the

This

Martn Luther

King

holiday in

United Martn

Luther Jr.

year,

on

16.

Jr. Day is a federal

States that

observed

on

marks the birthday

Day is

January year.

the

King,

Martn Luther King, Jr.

third Monday of each

holiday will be recognized January
and promote peaceful social change. This holiday is the only

federal holiday designated as a Natonal Day of Service to

encourage all American to volunteer to improve their

communites.

The natonal reoccurring theme of Martn Luther King, Jr.

Day is “Remember! Celebrate! A Day On... Not a Day Of.” it

calls upon the American people to engage in public service

a link

a local volunteer

opportunity:

If you are interested in volunteering, here is to

AmeriCorps, where you can fnd
**JULY 2001**

**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

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

*Change 13*

**AP2.23. APPENDIX 2.23**

**TYPE LOCATION RECONCILIATION REQUEST [footnoteRef:1]** [1: The end-of-day processing and location reconciliation process will not be required with the establishment of single shared asset balances (see Volume 2, Chapter 6).] 

## 

**AP2.22-**

AP2.23-1

APENDIX 2.23
64


                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                       ETHYL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
              for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)

                                                   1997       1996       1995
                                                 -------    -------    -------

Net income applicable to common stock (1)        $77,530    $92,972    $73,963
                                                 =======    =======    =======
Average number of shares of common stock
outstanding (2,3)                                109,793    118,444    118,436
                                                 =======    =======    =======

Basic and diluted earnings per share               $0.71      $0.78      $0.62
                                                 =======    =======    =======
Notes:

(1)   In the periods presented, the Company had only one class of common stock
      outstanding.

(2)   To determine the average number of shares of common stock and common
      stock equivalents, the average number of common shares and common stock
      equivalents outstanding (actual or assumed for equivalents) during each
      month were added together and the sum was then divided by 12.

(3)   For diluted earnings per share, the shares issuable upon the assumed
      exercise of outstanding stock options would be 7, 4, and 11 in 1997,
      1996, and 1995, respectively, and the shares of common stock equivalents
      would have been 109,800, 118,448, and 118,447, respectively.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

1

DIC FV2 FORMAT

VERIFICATION OF FUNDS AVAILABILITY REPLY

Transaction Format

Data Element Data

Type

Length Required

(Yes/No)

Description Character 

Restrictions

Document 

Identifier 

Code (DIC)

a/n 3 Y Unique DIC assigned to this

transaction.

FV2

Message 

Identification 

Number

a/n 20 Y Response will use same number as 

initial request.

A-Z, 0-9

Funds 

Verification 

Reply Code

a/n 1 Y Acceptable for Continued 

Processing (alpha codes):

A – Funds available; continue 

processing.

B – No action; bill-to not applicable 

under Component procedures; 

continue processing.

C- Reserved

D – No action due third party bill-to; 

continue processing.

E – Funds available, duplicate 

message identification number; 

continue processing.

F - Reserved

G – No action, other-Component 

bill-to; Confirm correct information 

and obligation has been recorded. 

If correct/confirmed, continue 

processing.

H – No action on modifier/follow-up 

due to previously recorded 

obligation; continue processing.

A, B, D, E, 

G, H, 1- 8
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

2

Data Element Data

Type

Length Required

(Yes/No)

Description Character 

Restrictions

Funds Verification Rejection 

(numeric codes):

1 – Order rejected due to lack of 

available funds for bill-to DoDAAC; 

do not process.

2 – Order rejected due to 

unauthorized bill-to DoDAAC under 

Component procedures; do not 

process.

3 – Invalid Fund Code; do not 

process.

4 – Duplicate document number (or 

document number/suffix); do not 

process.

5 – Modifier/follow-up with different 

materiel identification; do not 

process.

6 – Supply class not authorized for 

this customer; do not process.

7 – CAGE code not recognized by 

Component system; do not process. 

If manually entered recheck input; if 

system-populated contact help 

desk.

8 – Fund Code update not 

authorized (status of supply action 

precludes modification); do not 

process.
No. 11-5110.

#### Raymond Canty, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 890, 132 S. Ct. 269,

181 L. Ed. 2d 159,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5226.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 421 Fed. Appx. 541.
SNOW ENGINEERING CO.

WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS

ENGINEERING NUMBER

REPORT X 2308

ORDER MODEL

TITLE BY CHK’D See Below

GLIDE PERFORMANCE –

AT-802/802A

Claire Meschkat JH SERIAL

DATE ALL

1/24/13 PAGE 1 OF 2

REFERENCES:

[1] Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance, C.E. Lan & Jan Roskam

[2] Snow Engineering Co. Report 1747 – “AT-802/802A Rate of Climb Performance Calculations”

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to document and compare the glide performance of the AT-802 with 

spray equipment installed, the AT-802 in firefighting configuration, the AT-802A with spray equipment 

installed and the AT-802A in firefighting configuration.

SUMMARY:

The aircraft to be compared in this report are based on the geometric parameters listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Configuration Geometry

AT-802/802A

Wingspan [ft] 59.25

Wing Area [ft2] 401

Aspect Ratio 8.75

The smallest glide angle is obtained when flying at the maximum possible lift-to-drag ratio. Based on 

the geometry in Table 1 and drag polars from Reference [2], the rates of descent corresponding to 

the best L/D ratio on a standard day were derived. The weight of each aircraft was calculated with 

380 gallons of fuel and an empty hopper. Table 2 below shows the L/D ratios and rates of descent of 

each configuration at 95 mph.

Table 2: Glide Performance

Configuration AT-802 w/ 

Spray Equip.

AT-802 w/ 

Fire. Equip.

AT-802A w/ 

Spray Equip.

AT-802A w/ 

Fire Equip.

L/D 10.4 11.8 9.8 11.0

Rate of Descent [ft/min] 802 708 856 759

The following graph depicts the descent in altitude per distance traveled of each aircraft configuration. 

The maximum range or minimum glide angle under zero wind conditions is achieved by flying at 95 

MPH. 
SNOW ENGINEERING CO.

WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS

ENGINEERING NUMBER

REPORT X 2308

ORDER MODEL

TITLE BY CHK’D See Below

GLIDE PERFORMANCE –

AT-802/802A

Claire Meschkat JH SERIAL

DATE ALL

1/24/13 PAGE 2 OF 2

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Altitude [ feet MSL]

Ground Distance [Statute Miles]

Maximum Glide

AT-802 W/ Spray Equip. AT-802 W/ Fire. Equip.

AT-802A W/ Spray Equip. AT-802A W/ Fire. Equip.

*Speed = 95 MPH (IAS)

= 83 KIAS

*Propeller Feathered

*Zero Wind

*Flaps Up
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A2 01 1 . J AMES MONROE DAI LEY v

. THE STATE.

J am es Mo n ro e Dai l ey has fi l ed a d i rect ap p eal fro m t h e t r i a l co u rt ’ s o rd er o f

M ay 1 0

, 2 0 1 6

, wh i ch d en ied h i s m o t i o ns to s et as id e a v oi d ju d g m en t an d t o recu s e

t h e t ri al ju d g e. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Dai l ey fi l ed a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w o f t h e s a m e t ri al co u rt

o rd er, wh i ch we di sm i s s ed o n t h e m eri t s

. See Cas e No

. A1 6 D0 4 4 7 (d is m i s s ed o n

J u l y 14

, 2 0 16 ). “ It i s ax i om at i c t h at t h e s am e i ss u e can n o t b e rel it i gat ed ad i n f i n i t u m

. Th e s am e i s t ru e o f ap p eal s o f th e s am e i s s u e o n t h e s am e g ro u nd s .” Ech o l s v. S t a t e , 2 4 3 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 5, 7 7 6 (5 3 4 SE2 d 4 6 4 ) (2 0 0 0 ); see al s o Jo r d an v. St a t e , 2 5 3 Ga. Ap p.

5 1 0

, 5 1 1 (2 ) (5 5 9 SE2 d 5 2 8 ) (2 0 0 2 ). Ou r ru l i n g i n t he p ri o r ap p eal i s res ju d i cat a.

Ho o k v. Ber

g en , 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 8

, 2 6 1 (1 ) (6 4 9 SE2 d 3 1 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ). Th u s , Dai l ey i s

es t o p p ed fro m s eek i n g fu rt h er ju d ici al rev i ew o n t h es e i ss u es

. See id .; s ee al s o Ro ss

v. S t a te

, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 6

, 3 2 8 (7 1 3 SE2 d 4 3 8 ) (2 0 11 ). A cco rd i ng l y , t h is ap p l i cat i o n

fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/23/2016 August 23, 2016
No. 11-15.

#### The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., Petitioners v. Martin Litwin, et al.

565 U.S. 878, 132 S. Ct. 242,

181 L. Ed. 2d 138,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5436.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 634 F.3d 706.
No. 10-11006.

#### Michael A. Blow, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 862, 132 S. Ct. 201,

181 L. Ed. 2d 107,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6134.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 406 Fed. Appx. 555.
No. 10-9511.

#### Virgilio Maldonado, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 829, 132 S. Ct. 124,

181 L. Ed. 2d 46,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5801.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 625 F.3d 229.
No. 10-10090.

#### Pedro Sanchez-Zarate, aka Antonio Sanchez-Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 830, 132 S. Ct. 128,

181 L. Ed. 2d 50,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5243.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 269.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

DISPOSITION SERVICES CENTRAL 

CAMP ARIFJAN, KUWAIT 

APO AE 09366

February 12, 2016

DLA – Disposition Svcs-Arifjan

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD:

SUBJECT: Notification to Unsuccessful Bidder.

Dear Bidder:

I regret to inform you that, following the bid evaluation process for IFB 39-6702 (Qatar 

Metallic & Non-metallic Scrap), your cumulative average bid price was unsuccessful. 

Contract award for IFB 39-6702 will be awarded to:

a. Asahi Gen Trad & Cont. Co., Cumulative Average: $10.90.

b. Madinat Al-Meezan Co., Cumulative Average: $9.84.

The evaluation criteria used to make this determination as outlined in IFB 39-6702 was,

responsiveness, responsibility, and the cumulative average price which was the most 

advantageous to the USG. The winning bidder listing will be posted on DLA Disposition 

Service’s website for your review. If you require additional information please do not hesitate 

to contact me.

We would like to thank you for the time and effort spent in submitting your bid and look 

forward to your participation in any future Invitation for Bids, DLA Disposition Services may 

have.

Payne, W.N.

Sales Contracting Officer / PDS

Southwest Asia

Willie.Payne@dla.mil

DSN: (314)-581-2260

COM: (0049)-631-411-2260

DLA Disposition Services, Kaiserslautern

IN REPLY 

REFER TO

PAYNE.WILLI

E.NATHANIEL

.1120226785

Digitally signed by 

PAYNE.WILLIE.NATHANIEL.11202267

85 

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, 

ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=DLA, 

cn=PAYNE.WILLIE.NATHANIEL.11202

26785 

Date: 2016.02.12 13:40:41 +01'00'
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 15, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 15, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0868. CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSORS v. DIVA INVESTMENTS, 

INC.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Robert W. Cremin, certify that: 

1.              I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Esterline Technologies          Corporation; 

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(s) 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:
TENGA CUIDADO 

DE NO CORTARSE

ALREDEDOR DEL 

ORIFICIO EN

LA GARGANTA.

Shawn, 50 años, Diagnosticado a los 46 años

Estado de Washington

Fumar le causa daño inmediato a su cuerpo. 

A Shawn, le causó cáncer de garganta. Usted 

puede dejar de fumar. Para ayuda gratuita, 

llame al 1-855-DÉJELO-YA
No. 10-11286.

#### Jody Charles Thomas, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 877, 132 S. Ct. 239,

181 L. Ed. 2d 135,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6570.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 469.
No. 10-1550.

#### David Johnson, Petitioner v. Missouri.

565 U.S. 827, 132 S. Ct. 120,

181 L. Ed. 2d 43,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5265.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

     We have issued our report dated May 15, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Environmental Tectonics Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended February 24, 2006.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Environmental Tectonics Corporation and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-131322, effective January 27, 2006, File No. 333-65469, effective October 8, 1998 and File No. 2-92407, effective August 14, 1984), Form S-3A (File No. 333-29083, effective July 2, 1997) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-29083, effective June 12, 1997 and File No. 33-42219, effectiveSeptember 4, 1991).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania May 15, 2006

----
DLM 4000.25-1, June 13, 2012

AP3.52-1 APPENDIX 3.52

AP3.52. APPENDIX 3.52

INVENTORY CONTROL POINT GOVERNMENT 

FURNISHED MATERIEL VALIDATION REQUEST1

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier Code 1-3 Enter DIC AX1.

Routing Identifier Code

(From)

4-6 Enter the RIC identifying the 

inventory control point (ICP)

creating the DIC AX1 

transaction.

Media and Status 7 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Stock Number 8-22 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Unit of Issue 23-24 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Quantity 25-29 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Document Number 30-43 Perpetuate from the requisition. 

If perpetuating from a referral 

order, use suffix code.

Demand/Suffix Code 44 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Supplementary Address 45-50 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Signal 51 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Fund Code 52-53 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Distribution 54 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Project Code 57-59 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Priority Designator 60-61 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Supply Source Origination 

Date

62-64 Enter the date the DIC AX1 was 

created.

Advice 65-66 Perpetuate from the requisition.

1 Procedures to control access to DoD material inventories by defense contractors last reported as not 

implemented by USA (Retail). Refer to AMCL 1A.
DLM 4000.25-1, June 13, 2012

AP3.52-2 APPENDIX 3.52

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Blank 67-68 Leave blank.

Call Number 69-72 Perpetuate from the requisition.

Contract Identification 73-80 Perpetuate from the requisition.

OR

Management Control 

Activity Routing Identifier

Code

74-76 Perpetuate from the requisition.
# C_2015398EN.01000701.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/7

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Manuel Orrego Arias v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-456/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals - Article 3(1)(a) - Concept of ‘offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year’ - Decision on the expulsion of a third country national owing to a criminal conviction - Situation which is not covered by Directive 2001/40 - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2015/C 398/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manuel Orrego Arias

Applicant:

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) by decision of 4 September 2014 (Case C-456/14).

---

(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.

1

---