alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2013-0735

Docket Number

2013-SW-014-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 204B-12-68, dated October 10, 2012.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

ANTONIO JAMAAL MORRIS, No. 08-19-00021-CR

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v.

297th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

Appellee. of Tarrant County, Texas

§

(TC# 1325132D)

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Antonio Jamaal Morris, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal pursuant to 

Rule 42.2. This rule permits an appellate court to dismiss a criminal appeal on the appellant’s 

motion at any time before the court’s decision. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). Finding that Appellant’s 

motion complies with the requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

May 24, 2019

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
No. 10-7716.

#### Glenn R. Dean, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1159, 131 S. Ct. 962,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 401.

178 L. Ed. 2d 792,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 265.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,667,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      652,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160,000
<INVENTORY>                                          2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,393,000
<PP&E>                                           1,282,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     585,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,027,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,255,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          6,000
<COMMON>                                            44,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,722,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,027,000
<SALES>                                            113,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   903,000
<CGS>                                              300,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,074,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,630,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,707,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,707,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,707,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.85)



</TABLE>
SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

JEFFREY J CLARK KENT COUNTY COURT HOUSE

JUDGE 38 THE GREEN

 DOVER, DELAWARE 19901

June 1, 2015

Louis Williams, Jr.

SBI # 003

Building PT/4

Sussex Correctional Institute

P.O. Box 500

Georgetown, DE 19947

RE: State v. Louis Williams

ID No. 1503012393

Dear Mr. Williams:

The Court considered your motion to disqualify your attorney based on

alleged ineffective assistance. As stated in Court at the conclusion of the motion

hearing, your motion is DENIED. 

You alleged in your written motion and orally in court that (1) counsel did

not send you discovery responses in your case in a timely manner; (2) that counsel

disagreed with your decision not to waive your preliminary hearing; (3) that

counsel chose to not present certain questions at your preliminary hearing, despite

your request, and (4) that counsel’s demeanor made it difficult for your to interact

with her.

The standard for such a motion to disqualify filed by a Defendant seeking to

remove his or her attorney includes a determination as to whether (1) counsel’s

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) whether
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the

result of the proceeding would have been different. State v. Perkins, 2005 WL

3194460 at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2005). The Court’s review of such

motions includes the recognition that counsel’s conduct “is subject to a strong

presumption that his or her representation was ‘professionally reasonable.’” 

Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 552 (Del. 1998). In addition, the defendant “must

make specific allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them.” Id. 

Here, you make only conclusory claims that counsel was ineffective. It is

apparent that at your request, counsel conducted a preliminary hearing in the

matter. Moreover, the Court has reviewed the transcript from your preliminary

hearing. The questions and conduct of defense counsel at the hearing meet the

objective standard of reasonableness. Furthermore, counsel represents that she

forwarded the discovery from the State to you promptly after receipt. In Court,

you acknowledged that you have now received all state discovery responses in

your case, well in advance of your trial date. Your preliminary case review is not

scheduled until June 9th. Likewise, your conclusory allegation regarding Counsel’s

demeanor do not rise to the level of showing actual prejudice or are substantiated

in any regard. 

You have failed to establish that your have suffered any prejudice as a result

of your counsel’s representation of you. Moreover, counsel’s representation to

date has been objectively reasonable and there is no reasonable probability that

counsel’s actions have in any way impaired your rights to a fair trial. For these

reasons, your Motion to Disqualify Counsel is DENIED.

 /s/ Jeffrey J Clark 

Jeffrey J Clark

cc: Counsel

Prothonotary
DLA Distribution Warner Robins, Georgia

Mr. Joseph Steadley

Deputy Director

Joseph Steadley is a dedicated and accomplished leader bringing with him a 

wealth of experience from a distinguished 30-year career in the United States 

Navy and nearly a decade of service with the Defense Logistics Agency.

Born and raised in Miramar, Florida, Steadley embarked on his naval career 

in 1979, where he initially served in the Submarine Force and eventually rose 

to the esteemed position of Chief of the Boat. In his final 15 years of military 

service, he held the second-highest executive role in five different Navy 

commands, overseeing operations, resources, and personnel management 

for organizations ranging from 400 to 25,000 military, government service, 

contractor, and foreign national employees.

Upon joining the DLA team in 2012, Steadley made significant contributions to two Major Subordinate Commands: 

DLA Disposition Services and DLA Distribution. His role as the Operations Chief at DLA Distribution Warner 

Robins Georgia saw him take charge of the proper storage and issuance of materials crucial to the warfighter. This 

encompassed the management of over 130,000 unique National Item Identification Numbers and the oversight of 

22 warehouses and storage areas spanning more than 3 million square feet.

Furthermore, Steadley’s tenure as the Chief Administrator for the Director, Disposition Services Field Operation 

Mid-America showcased his prowess in managing personnel, budgets, financial programs, and resources. 

He efficiently directed the Mid-America Region’s financial and personnel programs, managed 338 authorized 

positions across 26 locations in 22 states with an operational budget of $33 million. His adept management of 

financial, contractual, personnel, training, and travel programs ensured compliance with stringent regulations 

while optimizing funding methods.

Steadley holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Human Resource Management, underscoring his commitment to 

excellence in the field. His dedication and achievements have earned him numerous personal awards, recognizing 

his invaluable contributions to both the military and the DLA. Joseph Steadley’s leadership and expertise continue 

to drive success at DLA Distribution Warner Robins
SCPW-19-0000801
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

SHERYLE FERREIRA, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE BRUCE A. LARSON, Judge of the Family Court of the

Third Circuit, State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge,
and K.V. (2009) and S.V. (2013); DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI # I; MARLEEN VICTORINO; ZACHARY KAILI-JOSUE; AARON CHUNG,

in his capacity as Guardian ad Litem, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (FC-S NO. 18-0017)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Sheryle Ferreira’s motion for reconsideration, filed on March 9, 2020, and the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 18, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000801 18-MAR-2020 01:44 PM
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

A MENDED O RDER

Appellate case name: The Iola Barker and James Trice v. Monica Hurst and Scott Martindale

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 5 29

- C R

Trial court case number: 34116

Trial court: 12 th District Court of Grimes County

On July 25, 2019, appellants filed an unopposed motion to transfer the clerk’s record and reporter’s record from cause number 01

- 17

- 00838

- CV to this cause. We grant the motion. The Clerk of this Court is instructed to transfer the clerk’s record and reporter’s record from appellate cause number 01

– 1 7

– 00 838

– C V to 01

– 1 9

– 00 5 29

– C V and to label the transferred records as Transferred Clerk’s Record I and Transferred Reporter’s Record I.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/ s/ Sher ry Ra dack

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ August 13,

___
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-321-000]


Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes In FERC Gas 
Tariff

July 7, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998, Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to become effective August 
1, 1998:

First Revised Sheet No. 56C
Third Revised Sheet No. 58B
Third Revised Sheet No. 63C
Second Revised Sheet No. 98A
Third Revised Sheet No. 114

    Paiute indicates that the purpose of the instant filing is (1) to 
comply with the directives or Order No. 587-G, issued by the Commission 
on April 16, 1998 in Docket No. RM96-1-007; and (2) to effectuate 
changes to the General Terms and Conditions of Paiute's tariff which 
are necessary to implement the Gas Industry Standards Board standards 
which were adopted by the Commission in Order No. 587-G.
    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. 98-18510 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.01

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S.
Steven Singh, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 6, 2008



By

/s/ S. Steven SinghS. Steven SinghChief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board


This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Concur under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3934

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Barry Mitchell Page, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 17, 2007

Filed: July 27, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Barry Mitchell Page guilty of being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

sentenced him to 180 months in prison, the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e), and five years of supervised release. Page appeals, raising six arguments.

After carefully reviewing the record and his submissions on appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.
-2-

First, we conclude that the defense of entrapment did not require Page to be

acquitted and that the defense of outrageous government conduct did not require the

charges to be dismissed. See United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1506 (8th Cir.

1996). Second, we conclude that the special-verdict form submitted to the jury did not

affect Page’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e)(1). Third, we conclude

that he has not met his burden to show that the government knowingly put on false

evidence or perjured testimony at trial. See United States v. Funchess, 422 F.3d 698,

701 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1452 (2006). Fourth, we conclude that

Page also has not met his burden to show that the government suppressed material

evidence favorable to his defense. See United States v. Cazares, 465 F.3d 327, 333

(8th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar. 12, 2007) (No.

06-10088). Fifth, we conclude that the record as a whole shows that he was

sufficiently aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation when the

district court granted his motion to proceed pro se with standby counsel. See United

States v. Crawford, Nos. 06-3464/3465/3466, 2007 WL 1610468, at *3 (8th Cir. June

6, 2007). Sixth, we conclude that Page’s sentence is not cruel and unusual. See

United States v. Yirkovsky, 259 F.3d 704, 705-07 (8th Cir. 2001).

For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Finally, we

deny Page’s pending motion for “mandatory judicial notice.”

______________________________
No. 11-5036.

#### Roberto Sanchez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 886, 132 S. Ct. 261,

181 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5229.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 27.
No. 11M3.

#### Eduardo Catarino Palacios, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 808, 132 S. Ct. 77,

181 L. Ed. 2d 10,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6691.

October 3, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 333.
EXHIBIT 10.1

   

 EXHIBIT 10.1
 

 Extension to the Option to Enter into a Joint Venture
 

 This Extension to the Option to Enter a Joint Venture (“Extension”) dated March 24, 2014 is granted and effective as of May 24, 2014 by C.S. Analytics, LLC (“CSA”) as Optionor and Greenplex Services, Inc. (“GSI”)as Optionee.
 Recitals
 CSA and GSI entered into an Option to Enter into a Joint Venture on March 24, 2014 which expired May 26, 2014. Both parties wish to extend the option period by an additional forty-five (45) day period.
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties covenant and agree as follows:
  1.

 Extension Fee: Upon execution of this Extension, GSI shall pay to CSA an extension fee of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). The fee will be non-refundable and will be deemed earned at the time of the payment. In the event that GSI properly exercises the option as provided for in the Option Agreement, the Fifty Thousand Dollar extension fee will be deemed to be part of the capital contribution by GSI. 
  2.

 Expiration Date: This Extension shall expire at 5 P.M. PDT on July 10, 2014 and shall no longer have any force and effect. 
 All other terms and conditions of the Option Agreement shall remain unchanged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Extension as of the day and year first written above.
 

  C.S. Analytics, LLC

 Greenplex Services, Inc.
 

  By: /s/ Matthew Haskin

 By: /s/ Victor T. Foi
  Matthew Haskin

 Victor T. Foia
  Managing Member

 CEO
No. 10-1344.

#### Kenneth J. Schmier, Petitioner v. Justices of the Supreme Court of California, et al.

565 U.S. 817, 132 S. Ct. 98,

181 L. Ed. 2d 26,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6819.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 17.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, J r. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

s0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

140374 & (24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140374 COA: 294492 Macomb CC: 2 005-003139-FH TERENCE ALVIN JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Novemb er 17, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D).
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Vote
Power Corporation  (the  "Company")  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2007
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby  certify  in  their  capacities  as
Chief Executive Officer  and Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,  as adopted pursuant to
Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: January 30, 2008            By:  /S/ Inti Shaikh
                                   -------------------------
                                   Inti Shaikh
                                   CEO and
                                   Secretary/Treasurer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   (principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.