alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-362.

#### Robert A. Lewicki, et al., Petitioners v. Washington County, Pennsylvania, et al.

565 U.S. 1060, 132 S. Ct. 769,

181 L. Ed. 2d 485,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8506,

November 28, 2011.

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

Same case below, 431 Fed. Appx. 205.
IGD 1011: ESOHMS MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS & EVALUATION, &

EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE

A. PURPOSE

The Interpretive Guidance Document (IGD) provides general guidance for the DLA-SM 

Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health Management System (ESOHMS) per 

the integrated requirements of ISO 14001:2015 & ISO 45001:2018. This IGD provides 

the framework of DLA Strategic Materials ESOHMS monitoring, measurement, analysis 

and performance evaluation, and the evaluation of compliance. The DLA-SM ESOHMS 

applies to all DLA-SM facilities, their employees, and all personnel working on behalf of 

DLA-SM. 

B. PROCESS

1. Monitoring, measurement, analysis, and performance evaluation

DLA-SM will monitor, measure, analyze, and evaluate the ESOHMS performance 

and will determine:

a. What needs to be monitored and measured, including: the extent to which 

legal and other requirements and compliance obligations are fulfilled; 

activities and operations related to identified ESOH hazards, risks, 

environmental aspects/impacts, and opportunities; progress toward 

achievement of ESOH objectives; and effectiveness of operational and

other controls. 

b. The methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis, and evaluation, as 

applicable, to ensure valid results.

c. The criteria against which DLA-SM will evaluate the ESOHMS 

performance, and appropriate indicators.

d. When the monitoring and measuring will be performed.

e. When the results from monitoring and measurement will be analyzed, 

evaluated, and communicated.

DLA-SM will evaluate the ESOHMS performance and determine effectiveness of 

the ESOHMS and will communicate relevant ESOHMS performance information 

both internally and externally, as identified in the ESOH communications 

processes and as required by legal requirements, compliance obligations, and 

other requirements.

DLA-SM will ensure that monitoring and measuring equipment is calibrated or 

verified as applicable and is used and maintained as appropriate.

DLA-SM will retain appropriate documented information as evidence of the 

monitoring, measurement, analysis, and evaluation result, and on maintenance 

and calibration or verification of measuring equipment. 

2. Evaluation of compliance
DLA-SM will establish, implement, and maintain processes for evaluating 

compliance with all ESOH legal and other requirements and compliance 

obligations. 

DLA-SM will: determine the frequency and method for compliance evaluation; 

maintain knowledge and understanding of the ESOH compliance status with 

legal and other requirements; and evaluate compliance and take action if 

needed.

DLA-SM will retain all documented information as evidence of compliance 

evaluation results.

C. SUPPORTING ESOHMS DOCUMENTS

1. DLA-SM ESOHMS Policy Statement

2. DLA-SM ESOH Management Plan

3. DLA-SM Environmental Compliance Audit Protocol

4. DLA-SM ESOHMS Conformance Audit Protocol

“Any reproduction of this document may not reflect the current version. Please refer to 

the ‘I Am The Key’ website for the most current version.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE COMPANY WAS FORMED ON JUNE 10, 1998 (INCEPTION)
AND HAS A FISCAL YEAR ENDING JANUARY 31
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          45,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,911)
<INVENTORY>                                     99,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,334
<PP&E>                                          63,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,623
<BONDS>                                        181,501
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,174
<SALES>                                        115,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,052
<CGS>                                          100,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,771
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,866)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,866)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20399]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; OBI Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 3, 1998, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), OBI Consortium, Inc. has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 3M, St. Paul, MN; 
AllData Corporation, Elk Grove, CA; Amvet Inc., Lexington, KY; Commerce 
One, Walnut Creek, CA; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA; 
Connect Inc., Mountain View, CA; Dell Computer Corporation, Round Rock, 
TX; Dun & Bradstreet, Parsippany, NJ; EPIC Systems Inc., Phoenix, AZ; 
Harbinger Corporation, Atlanta, GA; InterWorld Corporation, New York, 
NY; Mastercard International, Purchase, NY; PartNet, Salt Lake City, 
UT; Software Spectrum, Garland, TX; Vallen Corporation, Houston, TX; 
and W.H. Brady, Milwaukee, WI have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and OBI Consortium, Inc. intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 10, 1997, OBI Consortium, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60531).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 9, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18335).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 98-20399 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7028

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALAN B. FABIAN, 

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:07-cr-00355-CCB-1; 1:09-cv-02810-CCB)

Submitted: December 6, 2011 Decided: January 12, 2012

Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan B. Fabian, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Biran, Tonya Kelly 

Kowitz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alan B. Fabian seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Fabian has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Fabian’s motions for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-295-CR

					NO. 2-08-296-CR

					NO. 2-08-297-CR

RANDOLPH HOBBS JR.	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Randolph Hobbs Jr. was charged with burglary of a habitation in three separate cause numbers.  Hobbs entered open pleas of guilty to all three offenses and pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs in each indictment.  After a punishment hearing, the trial court orally sentenced Hobbs to thirty years’ imprisonment for each conviction and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.  The trial court’s written judgments reflect these sentences and also require Hobbs to pay court costs totaling $832.00 for all three causes.  In a single issue, Hobbs argues the trial court’s written judgments should be reformed to delete the requirement that Hobbs pay court costs because court costs were not announced in open court as part of the sentences.  

	As the State points out, during the pendency of this appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals directly addressed this issue and held that court costs are not punitive and, consequently, do not have to be included in the oral pronouncement of the sentence in order to be included in the trial court’s written judgment.  Weir v. State, No. PD-0616-08, 2009 WL 605362, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2009).  The court noted that the legislature intended that the assessment of court costs against a convicted defendant be “a nonpunitive ‘recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case’” and that requiring a defendant to pay court costs “does not alter the range of punishment to which the defendant is subject, or the number of years assessed.”  Id. at *1–2 (citations omitted).  

	This court is bound by the precedent of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and has no authority to disregard or overrule  it.  Sierra v. State, 157 S.W.3d 52, 60 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004), aff'd,  218 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).  Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not need to announce court costs as part of the sentences in order to include them in the

written judgments.  See Weir, 2009 WL 605362, at *2.  We overrule Hobbs’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.  

							SUE WALKER

							JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 16, 2009
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of Regency Centers, L.P.(the
Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: November 10, 2008
|                       
|/s/ Bruce M. Johnson   
|Bruce M. Johnson       
|Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-5915.

#### Willie Rabb, Petitioner v. Georgia Pacific, LLC, et al.

565 U.S. 966, 132 S. Ct. 461,

181 L. Ed. 2d 300,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7462,

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Samuel Jones, *Appellant,*v. B. B. Singuefield, and Paschal C. Mays, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 4, 1925.

*B. B. Moseley,*for Appellant;

*Frank Mathers,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument for counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there *425is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buf.ord, J. J., concur.
No. 11-207.

#### Brigid Bailey, Individually and as the Personal Administrator for the Estate of Joseph Paul Bailey, Deceased, and as Guardian ad Litem for Samuel P. Bailey, Paul F. Bailey, and Meghan Bailey, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1079, 132 S. Ct. 814,

181 L. Ed. 2d 525,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8678.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 623 F.3d 855.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CASCADES PROJECTION LLC,

Appellant

v.

EPSON AMERICA, INC., SONY CORPORATION,

Appellees

______________________ 

2017-1517, 2017-1518

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2015-01206, IPR2015-01846.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

PHILIP P. MANN, Mann Law Group, Seattle, WA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT 

GREENSPOON, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago, 

IL.

DAVID J. BALL, JR., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &

Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee 

Epson America, Inc. Also represented by NICHOLAS P.

GROOMBRIDGE, JENNY CHIA CHENG WU, New York, NY.
 

ANDREW J. BRAMHALL, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellee 

Sony Corporation. Also represented by KEVIN P.B.

JOHNSON; MATTHEW A. SMITH, Smith Baluch LLP, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER


 


 


CHINA FILMS TECHNOLOGY INC.


 


We, [                                                           ] of [                                                            ] (“the Transferor”) in consideration of
the sum of USD[                ] paid to me by [                                                              ] whose registered office is at [                                     ] (“the Transferee”), do hereby transfer to the
Transferee the [                ] shares numbered [                    ] standing in our name in the register of CHINA FILMS TECHNOLOGY INC. to hold unto the Transferee
their Executors, Administrators or Assigns, subject to the several conditions upon which we hold the same at the time of execution
hereof and we, the transferee do hereby agree to take the said shares subject to the same conditions.


 


 


AS WITNESS our hands the [     ] day of
[              ] , __________.


 





	Witness to the signature(s) of the Transferor	)	 
	 	)	For and on behalf of
	 	)	[  ]
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	                                                          
	Witness's name 	)	Transferor
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	Witness address	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	Witness to the signature(s) of the Transferee	)	 
	 	)	For and on behalf of
	 	)	[  ]
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	                                                            
	Witness's name	)	Transferee
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	 	)	 
	Witness address	)
```

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20090]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

Washington World Trading Corp. d/b/a, Washington World International 
Freight, Forwarders, 1380 Golfview Drive East, Pembroke Pines, FL 
33026, Officers; Lucia Novoa, President, Laura W. Novoa, Exec. Vice 
President

    Dated: July 22, 1998.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20090 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
```
No. 11-6989.

#### Raul Israel, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1070, 132 S. Ct. 787,

181 L. Ed. 2d 503,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8349,

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-6877.

#### Grady Hudson, Petitioner v. Gerald M. Lorence.

565 U.S. 1021, 132 S. Ct. 569,

181 L. Ed. 2d 410,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7984.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
REAR ADMIRAL GROVER C. HEFFNER

SC, UNITED STATES NAVY (RET) 

Is inducted into the Defense Industrial Supply Center Hall of Fame this twentieth day of January 

1999 for his extraordinary leadership and support as DISC’s 5th Commander from August 1967 to 

April 1970. 

Admiral Heffner was directly responsible for setting the wheels in motion for Standard Automated 

Materiel Management System (SAMMS). Under his inspiring leadership, major accomplishments 

were realized in connection with supply effectiveness, Public Law 87-653 (Truth in Negotiations), 

the use of advanced optical scanning technology in the field of computer input preparation, and the 

reversal of a negative trend in financial operations to one of a positive nature. 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/heffner.htm 1/21/2016
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License; Engineering 
Technology, Inc.

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Engineering Technology, Inc. a revocable, nonassignable, 
exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government owned 
invention described in U.S. Patent No. 5,351,623 entitled ``Explosive 
Simulator'' issued October 4, 1994.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than September 25, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Naval 
Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 North Quincy Street, 
Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R. J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 
North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 
696-4001.

    Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.

    Dated: July 16, 1998.
Lou Rae Langevin,
LT, JAGC, USN, Alternate Federal Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-19979 Filed 7-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P