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

 

The *Principles of Professional Ethics for the Intelligence Community* serve public-facing and internally-focused purposes. They reflect the core values common to all elements of the Intelligence Community and distinguish the officers and employees of the IC as “intelligence professionals.”

 

The principles–Mission, Truth, Lawfulness, Integrity, Stewardship, Excellence and Diversity–reflect the standard of ethical conduct expected of all Intelligence Community personnel, regardless of individual role or agency affiliation. The Director of National Intelligence formally issued the Principles of Professional Ethics for the Intelligence Community in 2014.

 

The heads of Departments and Agencies to which these Principles apply eagerly concurred in the establishment and issuance of this professional code. The principles serve as a reminder of the tremendous responsibility to which IC members are committed and the high standard of professional and personal conduct to which they must adhere.

The 2014 National Intelligence Strategy recognizes and reinforces the Principles as fundamental to the IC’s Mission and Vision, including the foundational Mission and Enterprise Objectives on which the strategy is built.

 

----

### **Mission**

We serve the American people, and understand that our mission requires selfless dedication to the security of our Nation.

### Truth****

We seek the truth; speak truth to power; and obtain, analyze, and provide intelligence objectively.

### Lawfulness

We support and defend the Constitution, and comply with the laws of the United States, ensuring that we carry out our mission in a manner that respects privacy, civil liberties, and human rights obligations.

### **Integrity**

We demonstrate integrity in our conduct, mindful that all our actions, whether public or not, should reflect positively on the Intelligence Community at large.

### Stewardship

We are responsible stewards of the public trust; we use intelligence authorities and resources prudently, protect intelligence sources and methods diligently, report wrongdoing through appropriate channels; and remain accountable to ourselves, our oversight institutions, and through those institutions, ultimately to the American people.

### **Excellence**

We seek to improve our performance and our craft continuously, share information responsibly, collaborate with our colleagues, and demonstrate innovation and agility when meeting new challenges.

### Diversity

We embrace the diversity of our Nation, promote diversity and inclusion in our work force, and encourage diversity in our thinking.

 

----

Download a PDF version of the IC Principles of Professional Ethics

Download a PDF version of the IC Principles of Artificial Intelligence Ethics

Download a PDF version of the the IC Artificial Intelligence Ethics Framework
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 26, 2014

p1125 

# Order

Clerk November 26, 2014

148740

In re Estate of DOLORES C. SOLTYS

_________________________________________

DENNIS SOLTY S, SR., and MARLENE

HARRIS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 148740

COA: 311143

St. Clair PC: 2009

- 000587

- CZ

DAVID A. SCHMIDLIN, Personal Representative

of the Estate of KATHLEEN SCHMIDLIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion

affirming the ruling of the St. Clair Probate Court that the plaintiffs had sufficiently

rebutted the statutory presumption of a depositor’s intention to vest title to jointly held

accounts in the surviving joint owner , MCL 487.703. In this case, the statutory

presumption that the decedent intended the joint accounts to become the property of the

survivor arose based on evidence that the decedent created and maintained the accounts

until her death. Jacques v Jacques

, 352 Mich 127 (1958). The Court of Appeals stated

that “the statutory presumption

. . . can be rebutted by competent evidence.” However,

although a party challenging the statutory presumption certainly must proffer competent

evidence, the relevant questio n is whether the party has met its burden of proof to

overcome the statutory presumption by providing reasonably clear and persuasive proof

of a contrary intention. Id. ; Lau v Lau , 304 Mich 218 (1943); see also Kirilloff v Glinisty

, 375 Mich 586 (1965). We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for application of

the proper standard. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain ju risdiction.
No. 01-15-00358-CR T.C. No. CR-13-0430

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT,

HOUSTON, TEXAS

BOBBY JOE JONES, JR., Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appealed from the District Court of Hays County, Texas 22nd Judicial District

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORTER’S RECORD

This Motion for Extension of Time to File Reporter’s Record is brought by BOBBY JOE JONES, JR., Appellant, who shows in support:

1. The Reporter’s Record in this case was due on May 11, 2015.

2. Appellant

is asking the Court for a 30-day extension. Appellant was contacted by Court Reporter Sherri Linder on May 11, 2015 and informed that an additional 30 days was needed as a software change had recently been made to the equipment used during the trial court proceeding.

3. Appellant

attorney apologizes for the delay in filing this extension as this attorney has been engaged in back-to-back jury trials with the most recent ending May 22, 2015 before the Honorable Judge David Wahlberg of the 167 th Judicial District of Travis County.

4. This Motion for Extension of Time to File Reporter’s Record is not sought for delay, but that justice may be done.

BOBBY JOE JONES, JR. prays that the Court grants the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reporter’s Record. ACCEPTED 01-15-00358-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/25/2015 12:00:00 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKRespectfully Submitted,

Bernard & Associates 1203 Baylor St. Austin, TX 78703 Tel: (512) 478-5291 Fax: (512) 478-9827

By: /s/ Tanisa Jeffers Brian Bernard, SBN 24001728 Tanisa Jeffers, SBN 24006153

Attorneys for BOBBY JOE JONES, JR.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I have conferred with opposing counsels and they do not disagree with this extension.

/s/ Tanisa Jeffers Brian Bernard Tanisa Jeffers

Attorneys for BOBBY JOE JONES, JR.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on May 23, 2015.

/s/ Tanisa Jeffers Brian Bernard Tanisa Jeffers

Attorneys for BOBBY JOE JONES, JR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 
      ( print page 10949)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel. “Dyslexia Study in Rats”.                     

*Date:*                         April 6, 2009.                     

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 2 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 496-1485.                         *changn@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 6, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

 [FR Doc. E9-5420 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.1


 




REDEMPTION NOTICE


Series 2 Class B Common Stock (Par Value $0.00001)


  








 




CARDIOGENICS HOLDINGS INC.


6295 Northam Drive, Unit 8 • Mississauga Ontario L4V 1W8


T: 905.673.8501 • F: 905.673.9865


redemption @cardiogenics.com







February 25, 2011


 







   







	
To:

	
The Holders of CardioGenics Holdings Inc. Series 2 Class B Common Stock (“Series 2 CL B Shares”)







 




This will serve as notice that CardioGenics Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) hereby redeems all issued and outstanding Series 2 Class B Shares of the Company as follows:








	
REDEMPTION PRICE:

	  	
$0.00001


	  	  	  
	
REDEMPTION DATE:

	  	
April 4, 2011


	  	  	  
	
SURRENDER INSTRUCTIONS:

	  	
Holders of the Series 2 CL B Shares shall surrender certificates representing their Series 2 CL B Shares to the Company at the following address:


 


CardioGenics Holdings Inc.


6295 Northam Drive, Unit 8


Mississauga, Ontario L4V 1W8 Canada


Attention: Series 2 CL B Redemption


	  	  	  
	
DIVIDENDS:

	  	
Dividends on Series 2 CL B Shares shall cease to accumulate on the day prior to the Redemption Date unless the Corporation defaults in the payment of the Redemption Price. To date, no dividends have been declared with respect to the Series 2 CL B Shares.


	  	  	  
	
TRUST ACCOUNT:

	  	
In accordance with the Certificate of Designation for the Series 2 Class B Shares, the Company has elected to establish a trust account with TD BANK CANADA, in which it will deposit, prior to the Redemption Date, all funds necessary for the redemption of the Series 2 CL B Shares, which funds shall be held in trust for the pro-rata benefit of the holders of the Series 2 CL B shares redeemed under this notice.


	  	  	  
	
TERMINATION OF RIGHTS:


 

	
  

	
Notwithstanding that any certificate for Series 2 CL B Shares called for redemption hereunder shall not have been surrendered for cancellation, all Series 2 CL B Shares so called for redemption shall no longer be deemed outstanding, and all rights with respect to such Series 2 CL B Shares shall forthwith on the Redemption Date cease and terminate, except only the right of the holders thereof to receive the pro-rata amount payable on redemption of the Series 2 CL B Shares, without interest.












CARDIOGENICS HOLDINGS INC.








	
By: 

	  	  
	  	
Yahia Gawad, Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Lorenzo Gerard HENRY

No. COA18-693

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Edwin K. Hunter and Hunter, Hunter & Sonnier, LLC v. 

Preston Marshall, Individually and Rusk Capital 

Management, L.L.C.

Appellate case number: 01-16-00636-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-35950

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

The Clerk of this Court previously issued a “Notice of Removal to Federal Court”

after appellants, Edwin K. Hunter and Hunter, Hunter & Sonnier, LLC (collectively 

“Hunter Parties”), notified this Court that defendant MarOpCo, Inc. had filed a notice of 

removal of the underlying trial court proceeding to federal district court. The Hunter 

Parties have filed a motion to extend the time to file their appellants’ brief, stating that 

the federal district court has remanded the case to the Harris County district court. See

Marshall v. MarOpCo, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-3236-G, 2017 WL 697787 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 

2017). Accordingly, we reinstate the case on the Court’s docket.

In their motion to extend time, the Hunter Parties request an extension of thirty 

days to April 12, 2017, to file their appellants’ brief. We grant the motion in part. The 

Hunter Parties’ appellants’ brief is due to be filed no later than April 3, 2017. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1, 38.6(a), (d).

Appellees Preston Marshall and Rusk Capital Management, LLC (collectively 

“Rusk”) have filed a response to the motion to extend time in which they oppose the 

requested extension. Further, Rusk requests that, if we grant the Hunter Parties’ 

extension request, “the Court also lift the stay and allow this case to finally proceed on 

the merits.” On September 1, 2016, we stayed the pretrial proceedings, including 

discovery, as to the Hunter Parties and noted that the order did affect any stay of “the 

commencement of any trial on the merits” pursuant to section 51.014(b) and (c) of the 

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We deny Rusk’s request to lift the stay issued 

on September 1, 2016.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 9, 2017
STATE of North Carolina v. Nathan Elisha TYLER, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA18-1184

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 18, 2019

NO ERROR.
Exhibit
      32 .1








Certification
      Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Imagenetix, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:





To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company.




Dated:
        June 28, 2006      /s/WILLIAM P. SPENCER
 William
        P. Spencer
 Chief
        Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 32 .2





Certification Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Imagenetix, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:





To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company.





Dated: July 11, 2011
/s/LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell W. GiffhornChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          90,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,382
<PP&E>                                       3,855,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 413,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,621,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,136,795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,829
<OTHER-SE>                                     475,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,621,744
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,468,075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (50,681)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             653,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,070,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,070,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,070,566)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.L.C., a child, * From the County Court at Law

 Brown County,

 Trial Court No. 00-01-005.

No. 11-13-00252-CV * August 29, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason 

of this appeal are taxed against Jimmy Ray Coffee and Carla Jeane Coffee.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-17151) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Capital
Holdings, Inc., of our report dated January 17, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Capital Holdings, Inc., incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

Toledo, Ohio
March 21, 1997
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER SHANE LANGSTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOSEPH ORR, Superior Court Judge,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-17741

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01625-JAMJFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Walter Shane Langston appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due

process violations arising from his state court criminal action over which defendant

Judge Orr presided. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

FILED

APR 14 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Langston’s claims for damages against

Judge Orr in his official capacity as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Flint

v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued for damages

in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).

The district court properly dismissed Langston’s claims against Judge Orr in

his individual capacity on the basis of judicial immunity because Langston failed

to allege facts showing that Judge Orr took nonjudicial actions against him, or that

Judge Orr’s judicial actions were taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction. See

Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that

“[a] judge is not deprived of immunity because he takes actions which are in error 

. . . or are in excess of his authority[,]” and setting forth the two exceptions to

judicial immunity); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76, 78 (9th Cir. 1986)

(setting forth the factors to consider when determining whether a given action is

judicial in nature and concluding that judicial immunity is a defense so long as “the

judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction”).

2 12-17741
Langston’s reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 and Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11 is unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.

3 12-17741