alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1Jones relies on an unpublished opinion in Moreland v. Bureau of Prisons,

No. H-04-3658 (S.D.Tex.), report and recommendation adopted, (S.D.Tex. March 31,

2005), in support of her interpretation of the calculation of good time credit

under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). This Court, however, is bound by the Fifth Circuit’s

precedent in Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312-313 ((5th Cir. 2005)(per

curiam), rejecting the identical argument Jones makes in this case. See Taylor

v. United States Bureau of Prisons, No. Civ. A. H-05-2399, 2005 WL 1799619, at

*2 (S.D.Tex. July 27, 2005). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CHANEL FRANCES JONES, §

Petitioner, § § 

 § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-579-Y VS. 

 §

GINNY VAN BUREN, Warden, §

FMC-Carswell, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING, AS MODIFIED, MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

In this action brought by petitioner Chanel Frances Jones

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of

the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

September 20, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on October 11, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Jones’s

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to

the issue of ripeness of this petition must be sustained; but

further concludes that Jones’s remaining objections must be

overruled, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should

be denied,1 for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report

at pages 4-5. 

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00579-Y Document 4 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 31
2

the magistrate judge, except as to the issue of ripeness of, are

ADOPTED.

Chanel Frances Jones’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.

SIGNED October 19, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00579-Y Document 4 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 32
EX PARTE Alvin H. DANIELS

CR-17-0076

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# C_2018190EN.01002003.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Passengers Rights sp. z o.o. v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-490/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 190/35)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc.;



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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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



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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2005



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II             
|    |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                 
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director
STATE of Louisiana v. Kendrick KIRK

No. 2019-KK-497

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Justice Hughes.

HUGHES, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.

Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ.

While the police officers had reasonable suspicion to approach defendant after he was identified by his cousin as likely possessing drugs, the state fails in its burden to show defendant was properly Mirandized.

After defendant was separated from other bus customers and handcuffed, the police specifically asked defendant if he had any drugs on him, to which defendant responded affirmatively. These were not preliminary questions, but were inculpatory, as defendant had already specifically been pointed out as likely to have drugs on him.

When asked if defendant was Mirandized before or after the inculpatory question was asked, the officer who gave the warning replied, "I'm not sure." As noted by the trial court, "That's kind of a biggy."

Because the state has failed to carry its burden under *Miranda,* the trial court's ruling suppressing defendant's statement and evidence derived therefrom should be reinstated.
Jerrod Deshawn LUCAS v. STATE

CR-16-0711

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
M.M. v. S.A.S. and A.W.

2150961

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 2772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00514]

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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the 
University of Colorado Boulder (WB24-69--12/30/24) for permission to 
use data from the Board's 2005-2010 unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A 
copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under 
docket no. WB24-69.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for 
release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2025-00514 Filed 1-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
```
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Fernando Sotelo Ruiz, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00190

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 276th District Court of Morris County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 11494

- CR ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt

. We note that the appellant, Fernando Sotelo Ruiz, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED A PRIL 9, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KELVIN D. PRICE )

)

v. ) 3-05-CV-1115-K

)

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed this ___1st_____ day of _August____________, 2005.

s/Ed Kinkeade

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01115-K Document 7 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 24
Exhibit 4.24

                             TERMINATION AGREEMENT

Effective this 1st day of November, 2002.

BETWEEN:

                  MITEL KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION
                  A corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada,

                  hereinafter referred to "MKC"

AND:

                  MITEL NETWORKS OVERSEAS LIMITED
                  A corporation incorporated under the laws of Barbados

                  hereinafter referred to as "MNOL"

In  this  agreement,  MKC  and  MNOL  may  be  collectively  referred  to as the
"Parties."

WHEREAS:

A.    MKC and MNOL executed a Research and  Development  Cost-Sharing  Agreement
      (the "R&D Cost-Sharing Agreement"), effective as of the 27th day of March,
      2001,  pursuant to which MKC and MNOL agreed to perform joint research and
      development activities and to share the costs thereof.

B.    The R&D  Cost-Sharing  Agreement  may be  terminated by the Parties at any
      time upon such terms as they may agree.

C.    The Parties have agreed to terminate the R&D Cost-Sharing Agreement.

NOW  THEREFORE in  consideration  of the premises  and mutual  covenants  herein
contained,  and for other  good and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the Parties  hereto  covenant and
agree as follows:

1.    Definitions

Except as expressly set out herein,  defined terms used in this Agreement  shall
have the meanings accorded to them in the R&D Cost-Sharing Agreement.

2.    Termination of R&D Cost-Sharing Agreement

The Parties hereby agree to terminate the R&D Cost-Sharing Agreement pursuant to
Clause 7.2 thereof ("Termination by Mutual Consent").

<PAGE>

3.    Effect of Termination

3.1 Except as  provided  in Clause 3.2 below,  upon the  termination  of the R&D
Cost-Sharing  Agreement,  neither party shall have any further obligations under
the R&D Cost-Sharing Agreement.

3.2 Section 8 of the R&D Cost-Sharing  Agreement shall survive termination,  and
shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF the Parties  have  caused this  Agreement  to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.

MITEL NETWORKS OVERSEAS             MITEL KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION
LIMITED

Per:                                Per:
      ----------------------------      ------------------------------
Name:                               Name:
      ----------------------------      ------------------------------

Title:                              Title:
      ----------------------------      ------------------------------
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-9 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 191
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-9 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 192
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 41 PageID 1
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 41 PageID 2
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 41 PageID 3
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 4 of 41 PageID 4
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 5 of 41 PageID 5
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 6 of 41 PageID 6
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 7 of 41 PageID 7
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 8 of 41 PageID 8
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 9 of 41 PageID 9
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 10 of 41 PageID 10
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 11 of 41 PageID 11
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 12 of 41 PageID 12
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 13 of 41 PageID 13
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 14 of 41 PageID 14
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 15 of 41 PageID 15
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 16 of 41 PageID 16
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 17 of 41 PageID 17
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 18 of 41 PageID 18
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 19 of 41 PageID 19
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 20 of 41 PageID 20
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 21 of 41 PageID 21
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 22 of 41 PageID 22
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 23 of 41 PageID 23
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 24 of 41 PageID 24
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 25 of 41 PageID 25
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 26 of 41 PageID 26
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 27 of 41 PageID 27
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 28 of 41 PageID 28
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 29 of 41 PageID 29
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 30 of 41 PageID 30
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 31 of 41 PageID 31
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 32 of 41 PageID 32
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 33 of 41 PageID 33
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 34 of 41 PageID 34
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 35 of 41 PageID 35
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 36 of 41 PageID 36
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 37 of 41 PageID 37
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 38 of 41 PageID 38
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 39 of 41 PageID 39
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 40 of 41 PageID 40
Case 5:05-cv-00192-C Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 41 of 41 PageID 41
Robert POTCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 3, 2019

Robert Potchen, Orlando, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This Court previously affirmed the order denying Robert Potchen's motion to correct *666sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 in Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2014-CF-8159-A-O. Due to Potchen's apparent abuse of the legal process by his repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in that case, this Court issued an order directing Potchen to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. *See* *State v. Spencer*, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Potchen is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. *See* *Isley v. State*, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Simpkins v. State*, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

FURTHER PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

ORFINGER, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

KDSM,Inc.

SinclairCapital

10706Beaver Dam Rd.

HuntValley, MD  21030

 

March 26, 2002

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

                KDSM,Inc. (the "Company") has received a representation letter from ArthurAndersen LLP ("Andersen"), the Company's independent publicaccountants, in connection with the issuance of Andersen's audit reportincluded within this filing on Form 10-K. In its letter, Andersen has represented to us that its audit of theconsolidated balance sheets of the Company and its subsidiaries as of December31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the periodended December 31, 2001, were subject to Andersen's quality control system forthe U.S. accounting and auditing practice. Andersen provided this representation in order to give us reasonableassurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professionalstandards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel workingon the audit and availability of national office consultation.  Availability of personnel at foreignaffiliates of Andersen was not relevant to the audit.

 

Verytruly yours,

 

                                                                                                         /s/David B. Amy                        

                                                                                                         Directorand Secretary, KDSM, Inc.

                                                                                                        AdministrativeTrustee, Sinclair Capital
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, Inc.;



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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 and change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 17, 2005



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|    |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director



26
Q.B. v. The matter of Q.B., a minor child

2160772

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 11, 2017

Dismissed.
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 9 

Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a Secretatry 

of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. THUNE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Notifying the President of the United States of the election 

of a Secretatry of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States be 

2 notified of the election of the Honorable Jackie Barber 

3 as Secretary of the Senate. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS