alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 600339

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### LASHOD A. MCINTOSH Hull Maintenance Technician Third Class (E

- 4 ), U

. S

. Navy Appellant

________

_________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann Minami, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Command er, Navy Region Northwest, Silverdale, WA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Comma nder

Justin L. Hawks, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant : Captain Bree A. Ermentrout
, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 24 January 2017

_________________________ Before M ARKS , F ULTON , and M ILLER , Appellate Military Judg es

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Fatima MARTINEZ, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1082

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 of Endeavour International
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, William L. Transier, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, 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.

/s/ William L. Transier
------------------------------------------
William L. Transier
Co-Chief Executive Officer

August 6, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Endeavour International Corporation and will be retained by
Endeavour International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE EX REL. Alvin BRATTON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 17-KH-0838

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of *889a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
STATE of Louisiana v. George WRIGHT

NO. 2017-KO-2175

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

Denied.
Immanuel WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 6.1

Grupo TMM and Subsidiaries

Computation of Earnings per Share (IFRS)



|                                                                                 |  |              |             |  |      |  |             |      |  |  |             |   |  |      |            |  |  |  |            |  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | ----------- |  | ---- |  | ----------- | ---- |  |  | ----------- | - |  | ---- | ---------- |  |  |  | ---------- | -
|                                                                                 |  | December 31, |            
|(In thousands dollars except ratio data)                                         |  | 2011         |             |  | 2010 |  |             | 2009 |  |  | 2008        |   |  | 2007 |           
|Shares at the end of period                                                      |  |              | 102,182,841 |  |      |  | 101,994,641 |      |  |  | 102,024,441 |   |  |      | 55,227,037 |  |  |  | 56,933,137 |  
|Yearly weighted average shares                                                   |  |              | 102,176,138 |  |      |  | 102,006,730 |      |  |  | 56,893,794  |   |  |      | 56,189,025 |  |  |  | 56,962,233 |  
|                                                                                 |  |              |             |  |     
|Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations                                     |  |              | 16,222      |  |      |  | (78,916     | )    |  |  | (95,670     | ) |  |      | 75,440     |  |  |  | (28,349    | )
|                                                                                 |  |              |             |  |     
|Net (Loss) from discontinued operations                                          |  |              |            |  |      |  |            |      |  |  |            |   |  |      |           |  |  |  | (38,563    | )
|Net Income (Loss) for the year Attributable to Stockholders of Grupo TMM, S.A.B. |  |              | 15,213      |  |      |  | (80,563     | )    |  |  | (97,050     | ) |  |      | 74,933     |  |  |  | (67,072    | )
|Earnings (Loss) per share from continuing operations                             |  |              | 0.159       |  |      |  | (0.774      | )    |  |  | (1.682      | ) |  |      | 1.343      |  |  |  | (0.498     | )
|                                                                                 |  |              |             |  |     
|Loss per share from discontinued operations                                      |  |              |            |  |      |  |            |      |  |  |            |   |  |      |           |  |  |  | (0.677     | )
|Earnings (Loss) per share Attributable to Stockholders of Grupo TMM, S.A.B.      |  |              | 0.149       |  |      |  | (0.790      | )    |  |  | (1.706      | ) |  |      | 1.334      |  |  |  | (1.177     | )
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 36536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14856]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application for a $22.5 million 
working capital guarantee to support the export of approximately $21.6 
million worth of titanium refining and production equipment to 
Kazakhstan. The repayment term of the guarantee is 18 months. The U.S. 
exports will enable the Kazakh firm to establish a maximum production 
capacity of 7,000 metric tons of titanium per year. Available 
information indicates that all of the new Kazakh titanium production 
will be sold in South Korea. Interested parties may submit comments on 
this transaction by email to economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 
Vermont Avenue NW., Room 947, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of 
the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Angela Mariana Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-14856 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENN TIBBLE, as representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, and on

behalf of the Plan; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON

LLP, Class Counsel and Lead Counsel for

Plaintiffs,

Appellant,

v.

EDI SON INTERNATIONAL; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55974

D.C. No.

2:07

- cv

- 05359

- SVW

- AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Pasadena, California

Before: BOGGS, *** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Plaintiff s

- Appellants Glenn Tibble et al

. (“ Appellants ”) obtained a damages

award of $13,161,491 in this class action lawsuit and were awar ded an additional

$5,800,000 in attorneys’ fees. Appellants subsequently filed a motion to deduct

$964,212 from the class award to reimburse class counsel for expert witness fees

.

T he district court denied the motion , causing the Appellants to file this appeal

. We

assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history and discuss them only as

necessary to explain our decision.

We review a denial of fees for an abuse of discretion

. Stetson v. Grissom

,

821 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2016). W e must there fore affirm the district court

unless it applied the wrong legal standard, or its findings were illogical,

implausible or without support from the record. United States v. Hinkson , 585

F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

.

Here, the district court denied Appellants’ motion because they prevailed on

only one of ten claims, the district court did not rely on any particular expert ’s

conclusions in reaching its decision on that claim , and the evidence offered in

support of the m otion did not show that any particular expert’s work was “crucial

or indispensable” to the claim upon which Appellants prevailed. Accordingly, it

cannot be said that the district court “(1) relie[d] on an improper factor, (2)

*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.3

omit[ted] a substantial facto r, or (3) commit[ted] a clear error of judgment in

weighing the correct mix of factors.” Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc. , 731 F.3d

952, 956 (9th Cir. 2013)

. The order of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 10.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Petrobras International Finance CompanyPIFCo (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

|                    |  |                                                |  |                              | 
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | 
|                    |  | By:                                            |  | /s/ ALMIR GUILHERME BARBASSA | 
|Date: June 18, 2003 |  |                                                |  |                              | 
|                    |  | Name: Almir Guilherme Barbassa
Title: Chairman | 

A signed original 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.





---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Petrobras International Finance CompanyPIFCo (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

|                    |  |                                                        |  |                             | 
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------- | 
|Date: June 18, 2003 |  | By:                                                    |  | /s/ DANIEL LIMA DE OLIVEIRA | 
|                    |  |                                                        |  |                             | 
|                    |  | Name: Daniel Lima de Oliveira
Title: Financial Manager | 

A signed original 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.
AFS-10-083-E 

December 28, 2009 

 Exemption No. 7135E 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-11509 

Mr. Charles S. Tutt 

Vice President Flight Operations 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. 

990 Toffie Terrace 

Atlanta, GA 30354 

Dear Mr. Tutt: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 7135, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated November 24, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA), for an extension of 

Exemption No. 7135, as amended. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations allows ASA to substitute a qualified and authorized check 

airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in 

command who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least 

one leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ASA. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7135, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 7135, as amended, to 

March 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 7135, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 7135. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MIGUEL MENCHACA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-55617 D.C. Nos. 3:14-cv-00067-AJB 3:12-cr-02268-AJB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 21, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Miguel Menchaca-Hernandez challe nges only the length of sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convicti on for illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Because Menchaca-Hernandez has been released 

# FILED
NOV 25 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).from custody and is not subject to an additional term of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Verdin , 243 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Palomba , 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). DISMISSED.
SUCCESSION OF Eugene D. LANIER

NO. 2018-C-1091

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

Denied.
___________ No. 96-2132

___________ Gary R. Lilley, on behalf of * himself and all holders of * Missouri Defense Bonds * issued during the Civil War, * * Appellant, * * Donna M. Hoback, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * State of Missouri; Missouri * Board of Fund Commissioners; * Dick Hanson, in his individual * capacity and in his official * capacities as Missouri * Commissioner of Administration * and Member of the Board of * Fund Commissioners; Bob Holden, * Appeal from the United States in his individual capacity and * District Court for the in his official capacities as * Eastern District of Missouri. Missouri Treasurer and Member * of the Board of Fund * [Unpublished] Commissioners; Margaret Kelly, * in her individual capacity and * in her official capacities as * Missouri State Auditor and * Member of the Board of Fund * Commissioners; Keith Thornburg, * in his individual capacity and * in his official capacity as the * legal representative of the * Auditor of the State of * Missouri; Jeremiah W. Nixon, in * his individual capacity and * in his official capacities as * Missouri Attorney General and * Member of the Board of Fund * Commissioners; Mel Carnahan, * in his individual capacity and * in his official capacities as * Governor of the State of * Missouri and Member of the * Board of Fund Commissioners; * Roger W. Wilson, in his

### The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2- individual capacity and in his * official capacities as Missouri * Lieutenant Governor and Member * of the Board of Fund * Commissioners, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 20, 1997 Filed: April 14, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Ga ryLilley appeals the district court's dismissal of his multi

1 count, civil rights action arising out of the State's refusal to redeem hi s Civil War Defense Bond. Having carefully reviewed the record and the partie s' submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court' s judgment was clearly correct and that an extended discussion is no t warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 21.0

List of Subsidiaries

Registrant: Jefferson Bancshares, Inc.



|                        |  |                      |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries            |  | Percentage Ownership |  | Jurisdiction orState of Incorporation
|Jefferson Federal Bank  |  | 100%                 |  | United States                        
|                        |  |                     
|Jefferson Federal Bank  |  |                      |  |                                      
|                        |  |                     
|Subsidiaries            |  | Percentage Ownership |  | Jurisdiction orState of Incorporation
|JFB Service Corporation |  | 100%                 |  | Tennessee
CEB SPREADSHEET

P-04-244 Standard Review

5/18/04

REQUIRED, CASE-SPECIFIC INPUTS: Molecular weight: 1.45E+02 Pure vapor pressure (torr): 2.33E+02 Hrs/Day (operations) Hrs/Day (worker exposure): OTHER REQUIRED INPUTS (default values in parenthesis) Volumes (cm3):

Wind Speed (ft/min): 4.40E+02 (average outdoor wind speed = 9 mph (792 ft/min), per CEB Eng. Man. average indoor wind speed = 100 ft/min (1.136 mph), per CEB Eng. M a 440 ft/min (5 mph) is the CEB default value, per Nhan) Fill Rates (#/hr)

Saturation Factors: Mixing Factors: 5.00E-01 Typical for all (0.5, dimensionless) 1.00E-01 Worst case for all (0.1, dimensionless) Ventillation Rates (ft3/min): Inhalation Rate (m3/hr): 1.25E+00 Standard inhalation rate (1.25 m3/hr) CONSTANTS USED IN CALCULATIONS (and units)

Universal Gas Constant: 8.21E+01 R (82.05 atm cm3/gmole K) Total Pressure (atm): 1.00E+00 (1 atm) Temperature (K) 2.98E+02 (298 K) Air Molar Volume (l/gmole) 2.45E+01 (24.45 l/gmole)

WORKER EXPOSURES AND VAPOR GENERATION RATES

Inhalation Exposure AREA DIAMETER I[mg/day] Cm[mg/m^3] Cv[ppm] A[cm^2] z[cm] Open surface

Worst Case Typical CaseA CE OPERATIONS(1/22/97 )
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth As Art 2

Filters

              - science_education(6)
              - science_science(5)
              - products_publications(10)
              - multimedia_audio(15)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(12)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(3)
              - multimedia_image(221)
              - multimedia_image-141771(16)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(204)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(49)
              - multimedia_video-149194(23)
              - multimedia_video-149195(20)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149222(2)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - other_basic-42(6)

## By Location

## By Year

Illustrations        January 31, 2000        Tantibus