alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Using a Pen Based Windows XP Tablet PC for Data Collection: Development of a Mobile System 

for Health Care Settings 

Sarah Kalsbeek, Dick Paddock, Reginald Pendergraph, 

Helen Smith, and Vanessa Thornburg 

RTI International, USA 

This presentation covers the development and implementation of a data collection effort using Pen Based 

W indows XP Tablet PCs. 

This study collects information on respondents receiving outpatient substance abuse services and health 

care providers delivering those services. The study is being conducted in six states and one tribal 

organization. The CAPI (computer assisted personal interview) instruments were especially designed for 

Tablet PCs using Blaise. The tablets selected for this study are Motion Computer’s Model LS800. These 

devices provide a unique mix a standard computing environment (W indows XP with Table Extensions) 

coupled with small size and modest weight (8.94 x 6.69 x 0.87 inches 2.2 pounds). This provides a 

standard development platform that can be used well in a data collection effort that requires the 

interviewer to be mobile. 

Tablets were chosen over laptops due to their light weight, ergonomic design, and capabilities. Their 

design allows field staff members to hold them for long periods of time in mobile survey settings including 

emergency rooms and health clinics where desks might not be available. 

Key topics of this presentation include the logistics of using the tablet PC, the unique capabilities of the 

tablet PC including signature capture for respondent informed consent (handwriting character recognition), 

security concerns, usability issues, and project modifications for field deployment. 

As this is a continuing study, this presentation includes observations from field staff and an update on 

study progress.
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 20 PageID 138
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 20 PageID 139
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 20 PageID 140
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 4 of 20 PageID 141
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 5 of 20 PageID 142
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 6 of 20 PageID 143
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 7 of 20 PageID 144
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 8 of 20 PageID 145
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 9 of 20 PageID 146
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 10 of 20 PageID 147
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 11 of 20 PageID 148
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 12 of 20 PageID 149
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 13 of 20 PageID 150
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 14 of 20 PageID 151
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 15 of 20 PageID 152
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 16 of 20 PageID 153
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 17 of 20 PageID 154
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 18 of 20 PageID 155
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 19 of 20 PageID 156
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-5 Filed 05/05/06 Page 20 of 20 PageID 157
Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW   Document 76   Filed 07/08/19   Page 1 of 3

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW   Document 76   Filed 07/08/19   Page 2 of 3

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW   Document 76   Filed 07/08/19   Page 3 of 3
Rakesh VERMA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0514

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

Rakesh Verma, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATION     I, Dr. F. Patrick Smith, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Tekni-Plex, Inc.:     2. Based on my knowledge, this report (as amended) does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report (as amended) our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report (as amended) any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’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 financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: February 22, 2008       /s/ F. Patrick Smith     Name Dr. F. Patrick Smith    Title Chief Executive Officer
AMENDMENT TO SENIOR SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE



  Exhibit 10.2 
   
 AMENDMENT 
  
 Lionbridge Technologies Inc. (formerly known as Lionbridge Technologies Holdings Inc.) (“LTI”) and Morgan Stanley Venture Capital Fund II Annex,
L.P. and Morgan Stanley Venture Investors Annex, L.P., (collectively, “Morgan”), amend the Senior Subordinated Promissory Note issued by LTI to Morgan on March 9, 1999 by changing the payment date reflected therein to August 12, 2003.

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be executed by their respective officers or duly authorized representatives as of the 29th day of July, 2003. 
  
 MORGAN STANLEY VENTURE CAPITAL FUND II ANNEX, L.P. 
  
 By: Morgan Stanley Venture Partners II, L.P., its General Partner 
  
 By: Morgan Stanley Venture Capital II, Inc., its Managing General Partner 
  
 By: /s/ Debra Abramovitz 
  
 MORGAN STANLEY VENTURE INVESTORS ANNEX, L.P. 
  
 By: Morgan Stanley Venture Partners II, L.P., its General Partner

  
 By: Morgan Stanley Venture Capital II, Inc., its Managing
General Partner 
  
 By: /s/ Debra Abramovitz 

 
 LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
  
 By: /s/ David Dahn
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § No. 3:05-cr-113-L-BT

§

CLYDE DALE EVANS (03) §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant Clyde Dale Evans has filed a motion for reconsideration of 

the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce sentence. (ECF No. 

288.) For the following reasons, the Court should DENY the motion.

I.

Defendant seeks a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) 

based on Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court 

previously reduced Defendant’s sentence based on Amendment 782 from 

188 months to 170 months. (ECF No. 258.) On January 24, 2018, 

Defendant filed a motion seeking a further reduction of his sentence based 

on the expungement of a disciplinary case and the poor health of his 

mother who is raising his son. (ECF No. 266.) On March 8, 2018, the 

district court denied that motion. (ECF No. 269.)

Case 3:05-cr-00113-L Document 290 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1786
2

Here, Defendant again argues that his sentence should be reduced 

due to the expungement of his disciplinary case and the poor health of his 

mother. The district court has determined that these factors do not entitle 

him to a further reduction of his sentence, and that Defendant’s sentencing 

range has not been further lowered by any changes to the Sentencing 

Guidelines since his sentence was previously reduced. Therefore,

Defendant’s motion should be denied. 

II.

The Court recommends that the motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 

288), be DENIED.

Signed October 22, 2018.

__________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-00113-L Document 290 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1787
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections 

will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:05-cr-00113-L Document 290 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1788
Jose Armando GONZALO PAULETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2803

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Justice
 On January 16, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Turn 14 Distribution, Inc.,*
                     Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00281-JP. The United States filed a complaint against Turn 14 Distribution, Inc. (“Turn 14”) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act related to Turn 14's offer for sale and sale of devices that defeat emission controls in automobiles. The proposed consent decree resolves the claims alleged in the complaint. The proposed consent decree requires Turn 14 to pay a penalty of $3,600,000 based on its ability to pay and to perform injunctive relief. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Turn 14 Distribution, Inc.*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-12601. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov*.By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter. During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     If you require assistance accessing the proposed consent decree, you may request assistance by email or by mail to the addresses provided above for submitting comments. Jason A. Dunn, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2025-01577 Filed 1-22-25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PAUL A. SCHILLECI,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________

2012

- 3188

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. AT0845110786 -I- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D AVID G ESPASS

, Gespass & Johnson, of Birmingham,

Alabama, argued for petitioner.

K ENNETH M. D INTZER

, Trial Attorney, Commercial

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depar tment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon dent. On the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Principal

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AV IDSON

, Director, T ODD M. H UGHES , Deputy Director, and T ARA K.

H OGAN , Trial Attorney.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, R EYNA

, and W ALLACH

, Circuit

Judges )

.

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

A pril 8, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12640]

Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: Exhibition of ``The Swan, The 
SUW Series, Group IX: Part I, No. 12'' Painting by Hilma af Klint

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary exhibition within the Collection Galleries: 1880s-1940s of 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural 
significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-01450 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Approved by OMB

3060-1034

Estimated time per response – 1-8 hours

 Form 2100, Schedule 335-FM 

 December 2023
 Form 2100, Schedule 335-FM 

 December 2023
 Form 2100, Schedule 335-FM 

 December 2023
 Form 2100, Schedule 335-FM 

 December 2023
 Form 2100, Schedule 335-FM 

 December 2023
 Form 2100, Schedule 335-FM 

 December 2023
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 24, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00577

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.C., A.C., JE.J.C., Children,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02118

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The State ’ s brief

is due on November 24, 2014.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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





Robert E. Balletto, President and Chief Executive Officer and Joseph W. Kennedy, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Georgetown Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) each certify in their capacity as officers of the Company that they have reviewed the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 and that to the best of their knowledge:





1.
the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Georgetown Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Georgetown Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





August 12, 2011

/s/ Robert E. BallettoDate

Robert E. BallettoPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 15, 2011

/s/ Joseph W. KennedyDate

Joseph W. KennedySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Steves
Rodriguez, Chief Financial Officer, of Organa Technologies Group, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: August 19, 2008




By: /s/  Steves Rodriguez


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


Interim
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 Education Realty Trust, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall
H. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as an
officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date: May
8, 2009.




/s/
      Randall H. BrownRandall
      H. BrownChief
      Financial Officer, Executive Vice
                  President,
      Treasurer and Secretary





In
accordance with SEC Release No. 34-47986, this Exhibit is furnished to the
SEC as an accompanying document and is not deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to
the liabilities of that Section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933.