alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# a kit Douglas - Cherry J. he did not accept the plea it was likely that the State would seek a habitual criminal adjudication and, if convicted, he would likely be sentenced as a habitual criminal based on his prior criminal record. The court stated that it had reviewed the plea agreement and the transcripts of the bindover and plea canvass and there was nothing that indicated that Lilley felt threatened or coerced during the proceedings. The court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, finding that counsel had an obligation to inform Lilley of the potential consequences he faced if he did not accept the plea and informing Lilley of those consequences was not coercive. The totality of the circumstances supports the district court's determination that Lilley was not coerced into pleading guilty and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. See id. at 721-22, 90 P.3d at 1125-26. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Drummond & Nelson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2977 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2977

         To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,1,2-2-
               tetrafluoroethene, oxidized, polymerized.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,1,2-2-
               tetrafluoroethene, oxidized, polymerized.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 1,1,2-2-TETRAFLUOROETHENE, OXIDIZED, POLYMERIZED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1,1,2-2-tetrafluoroethene, 
oxidized, polymerized) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,393
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,052
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,168
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     45,724
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        224,229
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,228
<DEPOSITS>                                     274,610
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,449
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,365
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 307,228
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,837
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  685
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   109
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,631
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,487
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,119
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    529
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.03
<LOANS-NON>                                        741
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,093
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,170
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,170
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,022
<PP&E>                                           3,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,630
<BONDS>                                          1,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,831
<OTHER-SE>                                         373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,057
<SALES>                                            878
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,423
<CGS>                                               63
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,055)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
T HE T EXAS STATE CHAMBER April 13, 2015 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary, U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Foxx, PRO

-BUSINESS · PRO-TEXAS FOR OVER 

### 90 YEARS

We are proud to S!Jpport Texas-based American Airlines as well as Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in their campaign to address the unfair practices ofthe government-subsidized and government-owned airlines of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These foreign carriers threaten economic activity and jobs across Texas as they are fueled by massive subsidies from their governments and continue to expand at a rapid pace in order to divert traffic to their own hubs. This subsidized expansion is distorting the international aviation marketplace. We believe that this unfair competition is threatening the airline routes and jobs that we depend on 

### in Texas and across our country. These Gulf carriers are highly subsidized and have collectively received billions of dollars in foreign government subsidies. Because ofthis, they have grown at astounding rates, rapidly expanding theirfleets and routes without concern for financial returns. Ifwe allow this unfair competition to continue, the service to small and mid-sized communities that we depend on will suffer as our airlines are forced to curtail both international and domestic flights. We strongly support Open Skies. Open Skies agreements have fostered growth and greater access for the United**Sta~es** airline

.industry. These foreign government subsidies and benefits, however, are in direct violations of Open Skies policy, which is predicated on fair competition, undistorted by government actions, including subsidies. If U.S. airlines are pushed off of routes and lose market share to the government-owned Gulf airlines, it will mean American job losses. Every international roundtrip flight that is lost results in an average net loss 

### of821 U

.S

.jobs

. Texas-based businesses such as American Airlines and Texas workers 

### ofAmerican, Delta and United are playing by the rules offair competition, and should not bear the consequences 

### of Open Skies violations by foreign carriers that threaten the Texas economic strength that we have all worked so hard to grow. U.S. Open Skies policy has served Texans well. Please support the effort to restore open and fair skies.

President



# s 10-150424-012 1209 Nueces St • Austin,Texas 7870I 512.477
.6721 • 512.477.0836 fax • www.txbiz.org**~** .
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00404-CV

__________________

MICHAEL W. DICKINSON, Appellant

V.

MONTGOMERY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-07-09864-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 10, 2019, we notified the parties that the appeal would be 

dismissed unless the appellant remitted the filing fee for the appeal. Appellant did 

not respond.

Appellant did not file an affidavit of indigence on appeal and has not shown 

that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. 
2

There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to pay the filing fee for the 

appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 15, 2020

Opinion Delivered January 16, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Steve M. Hanni, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer 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 small business issuer and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer=s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer=s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer=s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer=s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer=s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer=s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.



Date: June 19, 2006



/s/Steve M. Hanni

Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe SABINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-3499.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 14, 2004.

Robert E. Lindsay, Alan Hechtkopf, Gregory V. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin M. Schad, Schad & Cook, Indian Springs, OH, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before NORRIS, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

*The*defendant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the functions of the United States Internal Revenue Service. His conviction was upheld by this court, but the matter was remanded to the *627district court for resentencing. *United States v. Sabino,*274 F.3d 1053 (6th Cir.2001), *modified by United States v. Sabino,*307 F.3d 446 (6th Cir.2002), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 52, 157 L.Ed.2d 24 (2003). The defendant now appeals the sentence entered on remand. (Case No. 04-3214). The government cross-appeals. (Case No. 04-3327).

The defendant had been released on bond during the trial and prior appellate proceedings. In view of the new appeal, he moved the district court for continued release on bond pending his appeal. The district court denied the motion. This appeal (Case No. 04-3499) is from the denial of bond pending appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 9(b) (party may obtain review of a district court order regarding release by filing a notice of appeal or by filing a motion in the court of appeals).

A person found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment must be detained unless a judicial officer concludes 1) by clear and convincing evidence, that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of another person or the community, and 2) that the appeal is not for delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a sentence reduced to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b); *United States v. Chilingirian,*280 F.3d 704, 709 (6th Cir.2002); *United States v. Pollard,*778 F.2d 1177, 1181 (6th Cir.1985). This statute creates a presumption against release pending appeal. *United States v. Vance,*851 F.2d 166, 168-69 (6th Cir.), *cert. denied,*488 U.S. 893, 109 S.Ct. 231, 102 L.Ed.2d 220 (1988).

The district court denied continued release on bond pending appeal because the defendant had not raised any substantial appellate issues. “[A]n appeal raises a substantial question when the appeal presents a close question or one that .could go either way and that the question is so integral to the merits of the conviction that it is more probable than not that reversal or a new trial will occur if the question is decided in the defendant’s favor.” *Pollard,*778 F.2d at 1182 (internal quotation and citation omitted). We find no error in the district court’s denial of bail pending appeal.

Therefore, the order denying release on bond pending appeal hereby is .AFFIRMED.
July 9,2012 

Mr. Ian Wong 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Transport Directorate 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

FAA Project SA 7865CH-T 

Dear Mr. Wong: 

Med-Pac, Inc. has hired my company to act as their agent in the certification of the Med-Pac Air 

Ambulance Unit, Model 400 into Cessna Aircraft Company Model 680 Sovereign airplanes. As Med-Pac's 

agent, I am petitioning for an exemption from 14CFR 25.562 and 25.78S{b) to the extent necessary to 

permit the certification of the Med-Pac Air Ambulance Unit Model 400 for transport of persons whose 

medical condition dictates such accommodations. 

Section 25.785{b) (Section 25.785(a) at Amendment 25-64) requires that each seat, berth, safety belt, 

harness, and adjacent part of the airplane at each station designated as occupiable during takeoff and 

landing be designed so that a person making proper use of those facilities will not suffer serious injury in 

an emergency landing as a result of inertia forces specified in 25.561 and 25.562. 

Section 25.562 specifies dynamic test conditions for qualification of occupant injury criteria, as well as 

structural retention criteria. 

Med-Pac owns supplemental type certificates (STCs) for installing the Model 400 Air Ambulance Unit in 

numerous part 23 and part 25 aircraft. None of the previous installations have been shown to meet the 

dynamic criteria. FAR part 23 specifically excludes litters from the dynamic criteria. All previous 

installations have met the certification requirements for each aircraft with no adverse experiences. 

The estimated cost of demonstrating compliance is quite high considering the limited number of units 

for which Med-Pac (Quid amortize the cost. Since none have been shown to comply with the dynamic 

test criteria, the air ambulance unit can not currently be used on airplanes whose type certificate basis 

includes dynamic requirements. Currently, a person who needs to travel for essential medica l care can 

either charter an airplane at a significant cost, or fa il to receive the required treatment if chartering an 

airplane is cost prohibitive. Another alternative available would be to fly on an aircraft whose 

certification basis does not require dynamic testing. This would offer no increase in safety and may not 

be readily available. 
Med-Pac believes that granting the petition would be in the public interest for the following reasons: 

+ The level of safety that would be provided is an acceptable level of safety given the limited use 

of the air ambulance unit. 

+ The exemption would relieve an economic burden on a segment of the travel ing public already 

dealing with adversity. 

+ Section 25.562 is written for seats and would not be easily applied to a litter. Compliance with 

the dynamic test requirements would be difficult, very expensive and would not yield a 

measurable safety benefit. 

Med-Pac is requesting the FAA waive publication and public comment. The project is scheduled for 

completion the end of July. 

Please contact me with any questions or concerns. 

Re ard s, (_;.! n 

Certification 

aCkieGO ~W Manager (representing Med-Pac, Inc.)
Exhibit
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March
31, 2008  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 This 15th
day of May, 2008
 
 
 /s/ David D.
      StovallChief
      Executive Officer/s/ Annette
      BanksChief
      Financial Officer
RPC, Inc.


 


EXHIBIT 10.17



 


SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2008


 


The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors as of February 28, 2008.  This document is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee director.


 


Retainer


 


Non-employee directors each receive an annual retainer fee of $24,000.  The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $16,000, the Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $9,000 and the Chairman of each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,000.  A director that chairs more than one committee receives a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs.  All of the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.


 


Meeting Fees


 





	
             
 	
            Per meeting fees for non-employee directors are as follows:
 





 





	
            –
 	
            For meetings of the Board of Directors, Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee, $1,500.
 






 





	
            –
 	
            For in person meetings of the Audit Committee, $2,500, and for telephone meetings of the Audit Committee, $1,250.  In addition, the Chairman gets an additional $1,500 for preparing to conduct each quarterly meeting.
 






 


Equity Compensation


 


Under the terms of the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based compensation awards.  However, the Company does not make any such awards to non-employee directors under its current compensation practices.


 


All non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all services as a director, including committee participation or special assignments.