alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:94

- cr - 00454

- PJM

- 2 )

Submitted : July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeal s the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and agree that Gibson was not
entitled to relief under Amendment 782. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment

. See United States v. Gibson , No. 8:94

- cr - 00454

- PJM

- 2 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2017).
W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
2023 FCSM Research and Policy Conference

Tackling Declining Response Rates

Hubert Hamer, NASS Administrator

October 25, 2023
NASS: Tackling Declining Response Rates

Increase response rates by farmers because they can see how their 

responses can be used to benefit their own businesses as well as the 

public
NASS stakeholders, including staff, data users, respondents, researchers, extension, policy 

makers, other government agencies all have varying levels of understanding of the “usefulness” 

of NASS data. The goal of this project is to produce a publicly available dashboard that 

attempts to demonstrate to all stakeholders an answer to the 5W’s of NASS data. 

1. Who is using our data?

2. What are they using it for?

3. Where geographically is it being used? 

4. When are the heaviest periods of use?

5. And the loftier question of; why is this data being used?

NASS: The 5 W’s of Data Usage 

(Who, What, When, Where, and Why)
NASS DASHBOARD
Agriculture Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Nonresponse 

Follow Up Trial

Purpose: Identify the value to survey respondents to determine whether targeted 

information given to respondents will increase response rates?

Test Assumptions:

• Value is inherently local

• Value is inherently bottom line (data help respondents become better farmers)

• Value is particularly important for small producers (equity)
Expanding the Publication Corpus

Goal: Create a local connection to the producer

Approach: The Extension Service provides content that connects locally with producers, but 

there’s not a structured dataset that contains all of these works. Expand the corpus from Scopus 

to articles and various works created by the U.S. Cooperative Extension Service

Run the machine learning (ML) model on that source to discover extension resources that have 

utilized ARMS or Ag Census datasets – the who, what, when, where and why
Questions and 

Discussion
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER RE HIGH PRIORITY OBJECTIONS FOR JANUARY 18, 2019

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER RE HIGH PRIORITY 

OBJECTIONS FOR JANUARY 18, 2019

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1336, 1338

Before the Court are the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) high priority objections 

(“HPO”) and responses, ECF No. 1338, and Qualcomm Inc.’s (“Qualcomm”) HPOs and 

responses, ECF No. 1336, for January 18, 2019, day 7 of the trial. Having considered the parties’ 

briefs, the relevant law, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the record in this case, and balancing the 

factors set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules as follows:

FTC Objections Ruling

Martin Zander, Ericsson

FTC HPO #1: QX2929

OVERRULED.

Liren Chen, Qualcomm

FTC HPO #2: Chen Testimony 

OVERRULED, but Mr. Chen may only testify 

to the matters within the scope of his Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition. 

FTC HPO #3: QX9240 OVERRULED. Mr. Chen must lay the 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1350 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER RE HIGH PRIORITY OBJECTIONS FOR JANUARY 18, 2019

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

foundation for the business records exception

for Slides 3-6, 27, 41-42. The remaining 

slides may not be admitted for the truth of the 

matter asserted. 

Fabian Gonell, Qualcomm

FTC HPO #4: QX9226 OVERRULED without prejudice. Qualcomm 

may seek to lay a foundation at trial. If 

Qualcomm cannot do so, the FTC’s objection 

will be sustained. 

FTC HPO #5: QX2259 OVERRULED. 

FTC HPO #6: QX9325 SUSTAINED. 

Michael Hartogs, Qualcomm 

FTC HPO #7: QX0218 OVERRULED, but may not be admitted for 

the truth of the matter asserted. 

Todd Madderom, Motorola 

FTC HPO #8: Madderom Dep. 84:8-16 SUSTAINED. 

Qualcomm Objections

Fabian Gonell, Qualcomm

Qualcomm HPO #1: CX5173 OVERRULED. 

Qualcomm HPO #2: CX6786 SUSTAINED, but the FTC may introduce the 

audio recording. 

Michael Hartogs, Qualcomm

Qualcomm HPO #3: CX5708 OVERRULED as to the October 31, 2006 

email to Hartogs. SUSTAINED as to all the 

later emails for which Hartogs is not a sender 

or recipient. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1350 Filed 01/17/19 Page 2 of 2
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT

SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

(Re Docket 1342 and 1340)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1345 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1345 Filed 01/17/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1345 Filed 01/17/19 Page 3 of 3
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00256-CR

Oscar Osvaldo Barajas Jr. a/k/a Oscar Osvaldo Barajas

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-22-5023-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 13, 2023
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Ronald G. Farrell, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: December 23, 2009



/s/ Ronald G. FarrellRonald G. Farrell, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE D.E. and T.G.

(In re: Russell County Department of Human Resources v. D.E. and T.G.)

2170575

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 22, 2018

Mand. pet. denied.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Helios & Matheson North America Inc., on a consolidated
basis.
  Date: March 31, 2009

    /s/ Salvatore M. QuadrinoName:
    Salvatore M. QuadrinoTitle:
    Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer) (Principal Financial Officer)
Otis Lamont JACOBS, DOC #T84745, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-70

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Derrick Lewis KNOWLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0505

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen P. McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy M
Fund, LLC;

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 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 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(s) 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 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 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: August 15, 2005

By:/s/ Kathleen P. McSherry
---------------------------
Kathleen P. McSherry
Senior Vice President and Chief Executive Financial
Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5




<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jul-3-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jun-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jul-3-1999
<CASH>                                         1,163,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,061,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    8,152,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,931,000
<PP&E>                                         17,771,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,144,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,195,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,976,000
<BONDS>                                        7,180,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,471,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,187,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,195,000
<SALES>                                        31,523,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,523,000
<CGS>                                          27,070,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,070,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,673,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             572,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (482,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (258,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (224,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (224,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)



</TABLE>
E.M. v. A.L.R.

2170189

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

Dismissed.
Guaranty of Memorandum of Understanding between Catellus and Ted Antenucci



 Exhibit 10.38 
 GUARANTY OF MOU 
  
 THIS
GUARANTY OF MOU (“Guaranty”) is made as of the 22nd day of August, 2002 by CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (“Guarantor”) in favor of TED ANTENUCCI, an individual residing in the State of Colorado (“Officer”) in
connection with that certain Memorandum of Understanding of substantially even date herewith (the “MOU”) pursuant to which Officer is employed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Guarantor (“Subsidiary”). 
  
 In consideration of Officer’s agreement to execute the MOU and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Guarantor does hereby agree with Officer as follows: 
  
 1. The MOU is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Guaranty by this reference. 
  
 2. Guarantor hereby absolutely, irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees the full and punctual payment of all sums of
salary, bonus, expenses, fees and any other amounts payable under the MOU. Guarantor’s obligations under this Guaranty are continuing and unconditional and shall terminate only upon termination of the MOU by either party and full and complete
payment and performance of all guaranteed obligations thereunder as of the date of such termination. 
  
 3. Subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth, this Guaranty applies to, inures to the benefit of and binds all parties hereto, their heirs,
devisees, legatees, executors, administrators, representatives, successors and assigns. Officer may not assign this Guaranty voluntarily or by operation of law. 
  

4. This Guaranty shall constitute the entire agreement between Guarantor and the Officer with respect to the subject matter hereof. 
  
 5. Guarantor agrees that all questions, actions and disputes with respect to
this Guaranty or the performance or enforcement thereof shall be settled by binding and non-appeal able arbitration as provided in Paragraph 12 of the MOU. 
  
 6. Should any one or more provisions of this Guaranty be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, all other provisions shall nevertheless be effective.
Time is strictly of the essence under this Guaranty and any amendment, modification or revision hereof. 
  
 Executed as of the date of the MOU. 
  

	 CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/    NELSON C. RISING        


	 	 	 Nelson C. Rising
 Chairman of the Board
and
 Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel C. Sibley,Chief Financial Officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managinggeneral partner of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           The information contained in theReport on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| Date: November 14, 2006 | /s/ Dan Sibley                    |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Daniel C. Sibley                  |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer           |
|                    | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P. |

 

 

This certification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section.  This certification is notdeemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1 , 2022

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00134

- CV

LANCE MICHAEL JOHN SON , Appellant

V.

TERONNA JOHNSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 45623

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a final decree of divorce signed December 30 , 20 2 1 . The

clerk’s record was filed on April 25, 20 22

. The reporter’s record was filed on May

23 , 20 2 2

. On A ugust 18, 2022 this court (1) granted a motion to withdraw as

counsel filed by the attorney for appellant Lance Michael Johnson

, leaving

Johnson to proceed pro se and (2) ordered Johnson to file his brief by August 22,

2022.2

On September 15, 20 2 2 , this court o rder ed Johnson to file a brief on o r

before October 17, 202 2

, and gave Johnson notice that if he did not comply the

appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P

. 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We di sm iss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Spain, Poissant, and W i lson.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 9, 2013

NO. 03-12-00577-CV

Appellants, Lewis S. Christian, Jr.; Mark E. Morgan, Sr.; and South Texas Urgent Care 

Center Corp.// Cross-Appellant, Monroe Medical Management, Inc.

v.

Appellee, Monroe Medical Management, Inc.// Cross-Appellees, Lewis S. Christian, Jr.; 

Mark E. Morgan, Sr.; and South Texas Urgent Care Center Corp. 

APPEAL FROM 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION IN PART; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

PROSECUTION IN PART -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS DAY came to be submitted Lewis S. Christian, Jr. and Monroe Medical Management

Inc.’s joint agreed motion to dismiss the appeal in the above cause, and the Court having fully 

considered said motion is of the opinion that same should be granted. IT IS THEREFORE

ordered that said motion is granted and that the appeal as to them is dismissed. Additionally, 

Mark E. Morgan, Sr. and South Texas Urgent Care Center Corp. have failed to file a brief, and, 

accordingly, have failed to prosecute the appeal. IT IS THEREFORE ordered that the appeal 

as to Mark E. Morgan, Sr. and South Texas Urgent Care Center Corp. is dismissed for want of 

prosecution. It is FURTHER ordered that each party shall pay the costs of the appeal incurred 

by that party, both in this Court and the court below, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 265 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 265

 Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack at the Pulse 
                      nightclub on June 12, 2016.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2021

    Mr. Scott of Florida (for himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack at the Pulse 
                      nightclub on June 12, 2016.

Whereas, on June 12, 2016, a gunman inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and 
        Syria targeted the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where he killed 
        49 innocent victims and wounded dozens more in a despicable attack;
Whereas the attack at the Pulse nightclub was an attack on the LGBTQ community, 
        the Hispanic community, the City of Orlando, the State of Florida, and 
        the United States;
Whereas the Orlando community continues to mourn the tragic loss of life, but 
        has demonstrated remarkable strength, unity, and resilience in the 
        aftermath of the horrendous event;
Whereas June 12 is designated as ``Pulse Remembrance Day'' in the State of 
        Florida to honor the victims and survivors of the senseless attack;
Whereas the people of the United States continue to pray for those affected by 
        the tragedy; and
Whereas June 12, 2021, marks 5 years since the lives of the 49 innocent victims 
        were tragically cut short by the senseless act of terrorism: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commemorates the 49 victims killed in the attack at the 
        Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016, and 
        offers heartfelt condolences to the families, loved ones, and 
        friends of the victims;
            (2) honors the dozens of survivors of the attack and 
        pledges continued resolve to stand against terrorism and hate; 
        and
            (3) expresses gratitude to the brave law enforcement and 
        emergency medical personnel who responded to the attack.
                                 <all>
```