alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 5 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD A. LUMPKIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 97-1385
v. (D. Colorado) JOEL H. KNOWLES,

Defendant - Appellee. (D.C. No. 97-X-33)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Richard Allen Lumpkin appeals the district court’s order denial of his petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1) to p reserve an audio recording that is- 2 -

relevant to an ineffective assistance of counsel cl aim that Lumpkin plans to assert in a future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Lumpkin conte nds that the district court erred in assuming that he should or could have rais ed any ineffective assistance issue in his ongoing direct appeal in the Sixth Cir cuit. In his answer brief, the appellee concedes that the district court erred in its analysis, and he has cited us to United States v. F razier , 936 F.2d 262, 267 (6th Cir. 1991), for the Sixth Circuit’s rule that an in effective assistance of counsel claim will not be considered on direct appeal. Not ing that he has no objection to preserving the evidence under appropriate condition s, the appellee has requested a remand in the interest of a just resolution of the matter. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s denial of Lumpkin’s motion, and REMAND for further consideration. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeWorking With DLAApplicationsDetails

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DSG - DAAS Single Gateway

For access to DSG fill out the System Access Request **For access to DSG fill out the System Access Request: https://home.daas.dla.mil/sar/dsg_sar.asp

----

## DSG Information

DAAS Single Gateway (DSG) – EDI Account provides access for DAAS customers to apply for both automated machine-to-machine accounts (passive/restricted/CITRIX) and for personal user accounts.

The DSG user accounts provide access to a web query page used to track and verify the status of EDI transactions submitted by DAASs customers. Access to this page is limited to DLA ICP personnel working for either the STORES or DMLSS Prime Vendor Help Desks. Roles and permissions are set within DSG by DAAS eBusiness administrators to limit access for each individual account to only data/transactions directly related to their DOD customers and prime vendors. 

----

## Assistance and Contact Information

### DAAS Help Desk (DAAS Customers)

Help desk is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

Phone Number:** (614) 692-6672DSN Number:** (312) 850-6672EMAIL:** itoc@dla.mil

DSGDAASDAAS SIngle Gateway
# C_2016091EN.01000201.xml

| 8.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/2

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine applies

(2016/C 91/02)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 (3).

2

3

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (4).

4

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 60, 5.3.2016, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

4

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-14922-B; AK-964-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Cully 
Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity of Point Lay, Alaska, and 
are located in:

Umiat Meridian, Alaska

T. 3 S., R. 44 W.,
    Secs. 1 to 8, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 5,064 acres.

    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Arctic 
Slope Regional Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to Cully 
Corporation. Notice of the decision will also be published four times 
in The Arctic Sounder.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until April 2, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#51303a7f333d3c7f323e3f273428303f323411303a7f333d3c7f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb9a90d5999796d59894958d9e829a95989ebb9a90d5999796d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Hillary Woods,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I.
 [FR Doc. E9-4432 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Pedro Lluis, *Appellant,*v. Angela Lluis, *Appellee.*

Division A.

Opinion Filed April 29, 1926.

*Garabello & Moran,*for Appellant;

*Macfarlane*and *Petting'ill,*for Appellee.

•Brown, C. J.-

— This is an appeal from a decree denying the divorce prayed for in appellant’s bill, and decreeing alimony of $7.00 per week until further order of the court, to be paid to the defendant in the bill, together with a solicitor’s fee of $100.00, which was in addition to a like sum which had been allowed by previous order of the court as a temporary solicitor’s fee, and taxing the costs of the cause against the complainant.

This is a bill for divorce upon one of the statutory grounds and the testimony in the case was quite voluminous, covering some 260 pages of the record. The controlling question in the cause, and the one to which substantially all of the argument has been addressed, is whether or not the chancellor, in denying the relief prayed for in the bill, has so clearly erred in his conclusions on the facts as to call for a reversal by this court. The testimony was taken before a general master of the court below. In such eases, *707the finding of the chancellor on the testimony will not be given the same effect as the verdict of a jury, but his conclusions solely on the facts will not be reversed unless it *clearly appears*that he has erred in such conclusions. It is also a general rule that where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony on which a decree is based, but there is evidence to support the decree, it will not be reversed. Whether the decree of the chancellor is based upon testimony taken before him, or before a master or examiner appointed by him, in either event, his conclusion on the facts will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears to be erroneous. After a careful reading and consideration of the entire record, including the testimony and the briefs and argument of counsel, and bearing in mind that the burden of proof rested upon the complainant, appellant here, we are not able to say that it clearly appears that the chancellor has erred in his conclusions on the facts, and that his decree is, therefore, erroneous. While there was irreconcilable conflict in the testimony on the material issues of fact, there undoubtedly appears evidence to support the decree. As this court would not be authorized to reverse the conclusions of the chancellor on the vital issues in the ease, upon which his denial of the complainant’s prayer for divorce was based, no error can be predicated upon the further action of the chancellor in awarding alimony and attorneys’ fees as above pointed out, and which were duly prayed for in the defendant’s answer.

The decree of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.

Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 May 24, 2011

y0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

142482

MARK D. JACKSON EL, a/k/a MARK D. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142482 COA: 298054 Jackson CC: 10-000360-AW DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
No. 11-7415.

#### Michael Gisi, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 1130, 132 S. Ct. 1049,

181 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 351.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 64 So. 3d 682.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARTHUR JAMES SIMPSON,

APPELLANT,

V.

CLINT NOE,

APPELLEE.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00253-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of Williamson County, Texas

(TC# 16-0187-CC2)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on its own motion to dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution and concludes that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, in 

accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          70,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,158
<INVENTORY>                                  1,982,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,267,138
<PP&E>                                          73,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,340,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,062,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     734,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,340,575
<SALES>                                        841,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               930,325
<CGS>                                          616,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                155,986
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            155,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   155,986
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
No. 09-8184.

#### Aaron D. Younker, Petitioner v. Ohio.

559 U.S. 977, 130 S. Ct. 1697,

176 L. Ed. 2d 190,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2100.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Highland County, denied.
No. 09-6453.

#### Warren T. Roach, Petitioner v. Rockingham County Board of Education, et al.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1572,

176 L. Ed. 2d 155,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1057.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1078, 130 S. Ct. 797, 175 L. Ed. 2d 562, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8874.
No. 11-7018.

#### Willie J. Smith, Jr., Petitioner v. Dwight Neven, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1121, 132 S. Ct. 1019,

181 L. Ed. 2d 752,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 140.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 08-7721.

#### Wilson John Machado and Jorema Cabrera Arellano, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 966, 130 S. Ct. 1236,

176 L. Ed. 2d 175,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1903.

March 1, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in her brief for the respondent filed August 26, 2009.

Same case below, 293 Fed. Appx. 217.

Chief Justice Roberts,

with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join,

dissenting.

I dissent from the Court’s decision to grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand the case. The Court does this in deference to the Government’s suggestion that the Court of Appeals ignored petitioners’ nonconstitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government does not, however, take the position that the judgment reached by the Court of Appeals was incorrect, and this Court has not independently examined the merits of that judgment. In such circumstances, there are insufficient grounds for vacating the judgment below. See *Nunez*v. *United States,*554 U.S. 911, 912, 128 S. Ct. 2990, 171 L. Ed. 2d 879 (2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

*176This disposition is especially inappropriate in this case, as petitioners do not appear to have raised—in the Court of Appeals or in their petition for certio-rari—the claim that the Government asserts was ignored by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners argued below that their counsel’s poor performance deprived them of their *constitutional*right to the effective assistance of counsel. But they did not explicitly assert a right to effective assistance based on any source of law other than the Constitution. In their petition for certiorari, moreover, petitioners disclaimed any nonconstitutional basis for relief when they argued that, by denying the existence of a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, the Fourth Circuit’s decision “allow [s] *no recourse*for a particular alien against dishonest or corrupt immigration practitioners.” Pet. for Cert. 11 (emphasis added). This sentence would make no sense if petitioners were advancing both constitutional and nonconstitutional grounds for relief on their claim.

Instead of granting, vacating, and remanding, I would deny the petition for certiorari.
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q of  Mission  West
Properties, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  each of Carl E.  Berg,  Chairman  of the Board  and Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company, Raymond V. Marino, President and Chief Operating Officer
of the  Company and Wayne N. Pham,  Vice  President  of Finance of the  Company,
hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Carl E. Berg
-----------------------------------
Carl E. Berg
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
August 7, 2009

/s/ Raymond V. Marino
-----------------------------------
Raymond V. Marino
President and Chief Operating Officer
August 7, 2009

/s/ Wayne N. Pham
-----------------------------------
Wayne N. Pham
Vice President of Finance
August 7, 2009

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  or  otherwise  required,  be  deemed  filed by the
Company  for  purposes  of ss. 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as
amended.