alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STIP. REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING

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

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

United States Attorney

BARBARA J. VALLIERE (DCBN 439353)

Chief, Criminal Division

CHRISTINA McCALL (CABN 234139)

Assistant United States Attorney

1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 637-3680

FAX: (510) 637-3724

christina.mccall@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTO ACOSTA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 17-00024 JST

 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE HEARING TO JUNE 23, 2017

Date: May 5, 2017

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Court: Hon. Jon S. Tigar

The above-captioned matter is set on May 5, 2017 before this Court for the initial appearance in 

District Court following arraignment. The parties request that the Court continue the hearing to June 23, 

2017, and set the case for a change-of-plea on that date. The continuance is requested to allow defense 

counsel to conduct a further investigation and to assess the potential application of certain provisions of 

the Sentencing Guidelines. Defense counsel and government counsel are arranging an evidence view at 

the offices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives. The parties stipulate that the 

time is excludable from the time limitations of the Speedy Trial Act because the interests of justice are 

//

//

//
STIP. REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING

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

served by granting a continuance, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

DATED: May 2, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN J. STRETCH

United States Attorney

 /s/ Christina McCall 

CHRISTINA McCALL

Assistant U. S. Attorney

 /s/ Angela M. Hansen 

ANGELA M. HANSEN

Attorney for Alberto Acosta

ORDER

Based on the reasons provided in the stipulation of the parties above, the Court hereby FINDS that 

for adequate preparation of the case by all parties, and in the interest of justice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

sections 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), an exclusion of time is warranted under the Speedy Trial Act. Based 

on these findings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT (1) the status hearing is continued until June 23, 

2017, at 9:30 a.m., for a change-of-plea, and (2) time is excluded until June 23, 2017. 

IT SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________________________

The Hon. Jon S. Tigar

United States District Court Judge

May 3, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 4, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8942-8943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Customer Experience Hub

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 3, 2025, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Customer Experience Hub 
(``CX Hub'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Specifically, Access Pediatric LLC, Gainesville, FL; Advanced 
Telesensors, Inc., Austin, TX; The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer 
Foundation, Inc., Dallas, TX; The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and 
Biology, Philadelphia, PA; ViVBioTech LLC, Sacramento, CA; Biogenesis, 
Palo Alto, CA; CARIN Alliance, Washington, DC; CellChorus, Inc., 
Houston, TX; ELHS Institute, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Global Coalition on 
Aging, New York, NY; Handzin, Inc., San Fransisco, CA; Health in her 
HUE, New York, NY; Landmark Bio PBLLC, Watertown, MA; LastMinute, Inc., 
Brookline, MA; Netrias LLC, Annapolis, MD; Patientory, Inc., Atlanta, 
GA; Performance Hypothesis LLC, Atlanta, GA; and SmarTechNexus 
Foundation, Baltimore, MD have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and the CX Hub intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 11, 2024, the CX Hub filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on April 16, 2024 (89 FR 26929).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 1, 
2024. A

[[Page 8943]]

notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) 
of the Act on December 2, 2024 (89 FR 95237).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-02189 Filed 2-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
```
EX PARTE Derek Tyler HORTON

CR-17-0189

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Discussion of Session F-4: Geospatial Techniques

Rolf R. Schmitt 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 29590 

All four presentations in this session are descendants of concepts and topics in the 

Statistical Atlas of the United States, published by the Census Bureau in 1870 and 1890. 

The Atlas is a remarkable compilation of maps and other visualizations covering 

demographic, economic, health, government finance, and natural resources topics, and is 

worth reviewing as we consider ways to improve the analytical and visualization methods 

we apply to geographical analysis. 

The presentations reflect a growing demand for detail and accuracy stimulated by 

geographic information systems that allow anyone with a web browser to drill into 

geospatial data and see if their back yards are properly represented. The demand for 

detail is even greater for subjects like transportation and the spread of public health 

problems that involve interactions among regions. Instead of providing statistics on n 

locations, agencies must populate an n-squared matrix. 

The seemingly unrelated topics of this session demonstrated common problems of 

geospatial analysis across disciplines, such as small area estimation challenges for 

missing cancer data that are similar to challenges of disaggregating freight flow estimates 

to the county level. The session underscored the value of learning from each other the 

availability and quality of geospatial data that can be applied to many public issues, better 

ways to summarize geographical patterns and network performance, methods to 

characterize individuals by their surroundings versus methods to analyze the affects of 

surrounding on individuals, and strategies for democratizing geospatial data and spatial 

analysis tools.
William L. MCCLENDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 11, 2019

William L. McClendon, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Smith v. State*, 109 So.3d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[S]eparate charges and convictions are not required to support a substantive violation of probation based upon the commission of a new law violation.") (citing *Christian v. State*, 84 So.3d 437, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ).
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 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, 2006 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 29, 2007
    
    /s/ Shmuel BenTovName:
    
    Shmuel BenTovTitle:
    
    Chairman, Chief Executive Officer andPresident(Principal Executive Officer)
Avigdor LANDMAN, et al., Appellants, v. Antonio R. DIAZ, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1040

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019.

Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, and Scot E. Samis and Ashley R. Kellgren (St. Petersburg), for appellants.

Rubenstein Law and Anthony J. Soto ; Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Philip M. Burlington and Adam Richardson (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
We are doing very exciting work that will shape the future of 

economic statistics

1

International National Regional

• Integrated accounts 

with BLS and the 

Federal Reserve

Economic Statistics

•U.S. services trade

•International transactions 

• Multinational enterprises

Special Topics Satellite

Accounts

Research Integrated

Accounts

• State and county GDP

• State and county personal 

income 

• Regional price parities

•GDP

• Personal income 

• Corporate profits

• Economic well-being and 

growth 

• Global value chains

• Heath care 

• Travel and tourism 

• Outdoor recreation

• Natural capital

• Digital economy

• Machine learning
Eric YOUNG a/k/a Eric D. Young, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2016-CP-01760-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

August 14, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ERIC YOUNG (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE, JACKSON

BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., FAIR AND TINDELL, JJ.

FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. In January 2010, Eric Young pled guilty to armed robbery. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with fifteen years to serve, five years suspended, and two years of supervised probation. Young filed a motion for "reconsideration of guilty plea and sentence" two weeks later. The circuit court entered an order denying the motion in 2014.

¶ 2. Young then filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), claiming that his sentence violated the Equal Protection Clause because his co-defendant had received a more lenient sentence, with just ten years to serve. The circuit court dismissed the petition, noting that Young's sentence was legal and substantially below the maximum penalty for armed robbery, which is life in prison. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-79 (Rev. 2014). The court also noted that disparate sentences for co-defendants do not, by themselves, suggest any constitutional infirmity in either sentence. It quoted our decision in *Young v. State* , 919 So.2d 1047, 1049-50 (¶ 7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), where this Court held:

> There are no statutes or case law stating that a defendant must receive a sentence proportionate to a sentence imposed on an accomplice. Sentences between co-defendants are, often times, different. Also, the recommendations in regards to sentencing come from the district attorney's office, and each judge makes an independent determination as to what the sentence should be. The duty of this Court is not to determine the working mind of the sentencing judge or to determine the reasons why the judge gave that sentence to the defendant.

(Quoting *Booker v. State* , 840 So.2d 801, 805 (¶ 10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ).

¶ 3. On appeal, Young abandons his original claim and raises four new issues: (1) his counsel was ineffective; (2) there has been an intervening decision which would have adversely affected the outcome of his sentence; (3) the circuit court failed to establish that his plea was voluntary; and (4) his constitutional rights were violated. Since Young did not raise these issues in the trial court, we are precluded from reviewing them on appeal. *See**176*Fluker v. State* , 17 So.3d 181, 183 (¶ 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Thus, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of Young's PCR petition.

¶ 4. **AFFIRMED.**

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit
      23.1









**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB Annual Report of American Petro-Hunter,
      Inc. of our report, dated March 21, 2007, relating to the consolidated balance
      sheet as at December 31, 2006 and statements of operations, cash flows and
      stockholders’ deficiency for the year ended December 31, 2006 and for the period
      from January 24, 1996 (date of inception) to December 31, 2006.





Vancouver,
                Canada
            “Morgan
                & Company”April
                14, 2008
            Chartered
                Accountants





Tel:
                (604) 687-5841
              Fax:
                (604) 687-0075
              www.morgan-cas.com
            
            
            
            P.O.
                Box 10007 Pacific Centre
              Suite
                1488 - 700 West Georgia Street
              Vancouver,
                B.C. V7Y 1A1
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 Golden West Brewing Company, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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; and(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   __/s/ John C. Power______ John C. Power, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer August 18, 2009
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
ChoicePoint Inc.:

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of ChoicePoint Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002,
and have issued our report thereon dated February 21, 2003 (February 28, 2003
as to Note 14), which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to the Companys change in method of accounting
for goodwill and other intangible assets to conform to Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142 in 2002 and to the application of procedures
relating to certain disclosures and adjustments of financial statement amounts
related to the 2001 and 2000 financial statements that were audited by other
auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion
or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and
adjustments; such consolidated financial statements and report are included in
your 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders and are incorporated herein by
reference. Our audit also included the 2002 financial statement schedule of
the Company. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audit. In our opinion, the 2002 financial statement schedule, when considered
in relation to the basic 2002 financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein. The
financial statement schedule for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000
were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations. Those auditors
expressed an opinion, in their report dated February 15, 2002, that such 2001
and 2000 financial statement schedule, when, considered in relation to the 2001
and 2000 basic financial statements taken as a whole, presented fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
February 21, 2003

25
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/30/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE A. RIVERA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-2012 (D.C. No. CIV-92-1264-MV)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on a juryverdict against him on his various employment-related claims. He challeng es discovery, evidentiary and other rulings by the district court and seeks a newtrial. He was represented by counsel in the district court, but proceeds pro se on appeal. Despite the liberal construction we give to pro se filings, an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse his obligation to comply with the fundamental requirements of appellate procedure. Ogden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 750 (1995). In his four-page appellate brief, plaintiff makes only conclusory al legations of errors by the district court. He provides neither citations to t he record nor citations to legal authority to support his positions. Moreover, he h as not provided us with a transcript of his trial. Under these circumstances , we cannot consider his arguments on appeal. See Murrell v. Shalala , 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994)(perfunctory arguments failing to frame and de velop an issue insufficient to invoke appellate review); Brownlee v. Lear Siegler Management Servs. Corp. , 15 F.3d 976, 977 (10th Cir.)(conclusory reference to d istrict court error without citation to legal authority not adequate appellate argument), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 2743 (1994); United States v. Vasquez , 985 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir. 1993)(party’s failure to file trial transcript waiv es sufficiency of the evidence issues and precludes review of evidentiary rulings) ; SEC v. Thomas , 965 F.2d-3-

825, 827 (10th Cir. 1992)(court will not sift throu gh record to find support for appellant’s arguments). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett Senior Circuit Judge
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 Annual Report of Commerce Online Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cherish Adams, President 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 5(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.  /s/ Cherish AdamsCherish AdamsPresident  Date: January 5, 2010
Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW Document 16 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 1
D.S.C. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160984

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 16, 2018

Affirmed.
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 of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2008 (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: November 14, 2008



/s/ Ronald G. FarrellRonald G. Farrell,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130947 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130947 

 COA: 258399 

Ingham CC: 00-075986-FC

CRAIG JAMES MARR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk