alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: 2013 Mormon Cricket Survey Mapheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/GH2013_MC.jpg Return to Outbreak Info


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barney A. Richmond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Quarterly Report of
Green Energy Group, Inc. (f/k/a eCom eCom.com, Inc.) on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended November 30, 2010, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Green Energy Group, Inc.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date:
July 13, 2012 |  | /S/    BARNEY
A.
RICHMOND    
|                    |  | Barney A. Richmond           
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Richard C. Turner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section Section 1350,
that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report ofGreen Energy Group, Inc. (f/k/a eCom eCom.com, Inc.)on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended November 30, 2010, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofGreen Energy Group, Inc.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date:
July 13, 2012 |  | /S/    RICHARD
C.
TURNER     
|                    |  | Richard C. Turner            
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
VINCENT R. D'ANTONI, 

FORMER HUSBAND,

Appellant,

v.

NANCY N. D'ANTONI N/K/A 

NANCY A. NOONEY, FORMER 

WIFE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2922

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 3, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

Gerald S. Bettman, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Robert W. Elrod of Elrod & Elrod, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6156

GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00276-HEH)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6156 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition and denying reconsideration.∗

 Our review of the record confirms that the district 

court properly construed Williams’ Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254 petition over 

which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this 

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s orders.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Williams’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application 

to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Williams’ 

claim does not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas 

petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6156 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of William J. Haughey, Appellant, v Dale Artus, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 900]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Richards, J.), entered July 26, 2010 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge a determination of respondent finding him guilty, after a tier II disciplinary hearing, of violating the rule prohibiting unauthorized legal assistance. In lieu of answering, respondent sought to dismiss the proceeding on the basis of lack of timely service upon respondent and the Attorney General. Supreme Court granted the motion on that basis and dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

Significantly, respondent has now written to this Court withdrawing the objection to the timeliness of service based upon the discovery of a notarized affidavit of service demon*1243strating that service of the applicable papers had been properly accomplished in accordance with the order to show cause. As respondent has not been given an opportunity to submit an answer, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings *(see Matter of Sital v Fischer,*76 AD3d 723 [2010]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court to permit respondent to serve an answer within 20 days of the date of this Court’s decision.
Alan Stuart Graf, OSB # 92317 

alangraf@aracnet.com 

208 Pine St 

Floyd, VA 24091 

Telephone: 540-745-2519 

Fax: 931-964-3127 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CORY WATKINS 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

3: 14-CV-01753-HZ 

ORDER FOR EAJA 

ATTORNEY FEES 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded 

attorney fees in the amount of $8,891.12. Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 139 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), payment of this award 

shall be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney: 

Alan Stuart Graf, PC, 208 Pine St., Floyd VA 24091. 

It is so ORDERED 

Dated this� day of March, 2016 

��A� 

Prepared as to form United States District Judge 

/s/ Alan Graf 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES-I 

Case 3:14-cv-01753-HZ Document 41 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Louis Eisenstein et al., Respondents, v Wayne B. Gill, Individually and Doing Business as Jet Automatic Transmissions, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Chrysler Motor Corporation, Appellant. (And Five Third-Party Actions.)

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based on negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability, the defendant Chrysler Motor Corporation (hereinafter Chrysler) appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), entered April 16, 1986, as denied its cross motion (1) for an order of preclusion pursuant to *442CPLR 3042 (d), or, in the alternative, directing the plaintiffs to serve a further bill of particulars, and (2) to compel the plaintiffs to produce a certain document.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying that branch of Chrysler’s cross motion which was to direct the plaintiffs to serve a further bill of particulars. Our review of the record discloses that the plaintiffs’ second supplemental bill of particulars is sufficiently responsive so as to serve the objectives of amplifying the pleadings, limiting the proof, and assisting in the preparation for and avoiding surprise at the trial *(see, Abrams v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 84*AD2d 554, 555; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3041.03). Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying, after an in camera review, that branch of Chrysler’s cross motion which was to compel disclosure of a document entitled "exhibit F”. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 31, 2010 

0324 

Order 

 

March 31, 2010 

139723 

BEVERLY HARSHAW, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Deshon 

Harshaw, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139723 

 COA: 291980 

Wayne CC: 07-727521-NZ 

CLASSIC CONEY ISLAND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 19, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
#### HERMAN WEXLER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. LAMBRECHT FOODS, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 64 *N. J. Super.*489.

*Messrs. O’Brien, Brett & O’Brien*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Ronald G. Targan*for the respondent.

February 14, 1961.

Denied.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1973

To amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, to revise the consent

exception to the prohibition on the interception of oral, wire, or electronic

communications.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 23, 1998

Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

TORRICELLI, and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code,

to revise the consent exception to the prohibition on

the interception of oral, wire, or electronic communications.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Telephone Privacy Act

5 of 1998’’.
2

S 1973 IS

1 SEC. 2. REVISION OF CONSENT EXCEPTION TO PROHIBI2 TION ON INTERCEPTION OF ORAL, WIRE, OR

3 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

4 Section 2511(2)(d) of title 18, United States Code,

5 shall be revised to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(d)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter

7 for a person not acting under color of law to intercept

8 a wire, oral, or electronic communication where all parties

9 to the communication have given prior consent to such

10 interception unless such communication is intercepted for

11 the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in

12 violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States

13 or of any State.

14 ‘‘(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (i), a person

15 may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication

16 where such person is a party to the communication and

17 the communication conveys threats of physical harm, har18 assment or intimidation.’’.

Æ
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Patricia  Baumgartner
                        Foreign Arthropod Borne Animal Disease Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (785) 712-3853
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
GCDAMP Document Comment Form 

Document Title ______________________________________________ Document Date: _____________________ Reviewer Name: _____________________ Affiliation: _____________________ Comment Number 

Page/ Line 

Line Reviewer 

Comment 

Response Requested Y/N 

Author Respons

1 2 3 . . . n 
Revised by L.Whetton 

GCDAMP Document Comment Form 

Document Title: Document Date: Reviewer Name: Affiliation: Comment 

Number 

Commentor’s 

Name / Date Page Line Reviewer Comment 

Response 

Requested 

Y/N 

A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

10
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



The undersigned, Josh Emanuel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and John Gunn, General Manager, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of DataWave Systems Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DataWave Systems Inc. for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003 (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 DataWave Systems Inc.

|Dated: February 12th, 2004 |  |                                            
|-------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                           |  | /s/ Josh Emanuel                           
|                           |  | Josh Emanuel                               
|                           |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer       
|                           |  |                                            
|                           |  | /s/ John Gunn                              
|                           |  | John Gunn                                  
|                           |  | General Manager and Chief Financial Officer
|                           |  |                                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to DataWave Systems Inc. and will be retained by DataWave Systems Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2005251EN.01000402.xml

| 11.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/4

---

Notification by the Republic of Latvia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2005/C 251/06)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU presents its compliments to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union and has the honour to bring to their attention the following issue.

As a Member State of the European Union, Latvia unilaterally maintains visa-free regime for the citizens of the United States of America in accordance with EU Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

Pursuant to Article 2 of EU Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism, Latvia would like to notify the Council and the Commission that the United States of America continue to apply unilateral visa regime to the citizens of the Republic of Latvia.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned and in accordance with the solidarity mechanism provided by Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 for achieving full reciprocity in respect to all Member States, Latvia believes that appropriate measures have to be taken in order to assure that all EU citizens may enter the territory of the United States of America under equal conditions.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union assurances of its highest consideration.

---

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albino R. Plastini, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), rendered April 1, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed on the defendant’s conviction of menacing to three months’ imprisonment. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Mrs. Plastini’s testimony inasmuch as the evidence sought to be introduced was not relevant *(see, People v Daly,*98 AD2d 803, 805, *affd*64 NY2d 970).

The defendant further contends that the Grand Jury proceedings were defective inasmuch as the prosecutor read to *506the Grand Jury Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (a) rather than Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (b). The defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment was denied by Justice Colabella. Despite the fact that the prosecutor erred by reading a different paragraph than the one for which the defendant was indicted, this court is precluded from reviewing the pretrial denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment if the judgment of conviction is "based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6]). Therefore, as there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction as to robbery in the second degree, we may not review Justice Colabella’s decision (CPL 210.30 [6]; *cf. People v Dearstyne,*50 AD2d 1029, 1030).

The defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit inasmuch as the record reflects that trial counsel provided meaningful representation to him *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796).

Finally, the trial court, *inter alia,*sentenced the defendant to a determinate term of six months’ imprisonment on the menacing charge. Since menacing is a class B misdemeanor *(see,*Penal Law § 120.15), the maximum sentence is three months *(see,*Penal Law § 70.15 [2]). Therefore, the sentence has been modified to the extent indicated. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.