alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
agreement, Kennedy stated that he was entering his plea freely and 

voluntarily without threats or promises of any kind. Although Kennedy 

testified at the evidentiary hearing that this statement was a lie and he 

pleaded guilty because he feared for his own safety and the safety of his 

family, and he testified that his confessions to the police were false, the 

district court determined that this testimony was not credible. The court 

noted that Kennedy wrote a statement that was attached to the 

presentence investigation report in which he admitted to robbing a bar. 

When questioned about this at the evidentiary hearing, Kennedy 

acknowledged that the only bar he was charged with robbing was the Alibi 

Lounge, he did not fear for his safety or the safety of his family when he 

wrote the statement, and he was not coerced into writing that statement. 

The district court also noted that although Kennedy was given an 

opportunity to address the court at sentencing, Kennedy did not assert at 

the time that he was innocent of the Alibi Lounge robbery and he never 

indicated to the court that he entered his plea under duress. Kennedy 

explained at the evidentiary hearing that he did not inform the court of 

the prior duress or move to withdraw his plea to the Alibi Lounge robbery 

because he thought the sentencing consequences would be the same. The 

district court found that Kennedy failed to demonstrate that he was acting 

under duress when he entered his guilty plea. We conclude that the 

totality of the circumstances supports the district court's determination 

that the plea was voluntarily entered, State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1104, 

13 P.3d 442, 447 (2000), and, therefore, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying this claim. 

Kennedy also claims that the district court erred by denying 

his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alibi 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
witness. When reviewing the district court's resolution of an ineffectiveassistance claim, we give deference to the court's factual findings if 

supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review 

the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 

121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). The district court found 

that counsel was not ineffective because the alleged alibi witness testified 

at the evidentiary hearing that she would not have cooperated with 

counsel had counsel interviewed her and counsel credibly testified that he 

was never aware that there was a possible alibi witness. See Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668. 687-88 (1984); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58- 

59 (1985). The record supports the district court's findings, and we 

conclude the district court did not err as a matter of law. 

Having concluded that Kennedy's claims lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Mary Lou Wilson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
Clear All

        23 March 2024    

                    USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) arrives in Copenhagen, Denmark                 
                USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) a cutting-edge Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer assigned to Forward Deployed Naval Forces-Europe (FDNF-E), docked in Copenhagen, Denmark for a scheduled port visit, March 22, 2024.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
# C_2010020EN.01003802.xml

| 27.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/38

---

Corrigendum to the Commission notice concerning parties exempted, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 and last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005: changes in the name and address of certain exempted parties

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 291 of 1 December 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 291 of 1 December 2009

2010/C 20/11

On page 11, in the third line and second column of the table:

for:

‘Credat Holding a.s.’,

read:

‘Credat Industries a.s.’.

---
<PAGE>
 
Parent and Subsidiaries*

Name                       State or Province of Incorporation
              -----------------------------------------------------
XTRA Corporation                                           Delaware

Subsidiary of XTRA Corporation
XTRA, Inc.                                                 Maine

Subsidiaries of XTRA, Inc.
XTRA Intermodal, Inc.                                      Delaware
XTRA International Ltd                                     Delaware
X-L-CO., INC.                                              Delaware
XLI, Inc.                                                  Delaware

Subsidiaries of XLI, Inc.
Distribution International Corporation                     Delaware

Subsidiaries of Distribution International Corporation
Strick Canada Limited                                      Ontario
XTRA Lease, Inc.                                           Delaware


* Certain inactive subsidiaries have been omitted.
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9
- 0 395 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GLEN JOHN GLENN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30
- day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Ju ly 6 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response .

Electronically signed by: Laurie McKinnon Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 1 2020

06/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0395
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                               21,655,874
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     20,684,624
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       20,684,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   387,407
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                           20,297,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         20,684,624
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    (11,891,793)
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        685,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (12,576,872)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (12,576,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                        (12,576,872)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (589.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (589.09)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. GT01-20-000]

Take notice that on April 30, 2001, Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be effective June 1, 2001: 

Third Revised Sheet No. 5A

Second Revised Sheet No. 5B

Second Revised Sheet No. 5C

Trunkline states that the purpose of this filing, made in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.106 of the Commission's Regulations, is to revise the system map to reflect changes in the pipeline facilities and the points at which service is provided.

Trunkline states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's                           ( print page 23694)                        Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11662  Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

                                                                    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 Enclaves Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D.
MacFarlane,   Chief  Operating   Officer  and  acting  Chief  Financial  Officer
(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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: September 21, 2005                    /s/ Mark D. MacFarlane
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                 Mark D. MacFarlane
                                             Chief Operating Officer and
                                             acting Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed  original of this  certification  has been  provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```
United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

 

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT 

 

McCain

V. 07-cv-5729

 

Rahal Letterman Racing, LLC

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action

is reassigned to the calendar of

JUDGE RAKOFF

 

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk’s Office of

the Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge’s initials after the case

number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

Reassignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Date:6/25/07

By: Janeen Miles

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
#                                                                         Embarked Airwing Conducts F-35C Cyclic Operations Aboard George Washington                                                                    

10 April 2024

                An F-35C Lightning II, from Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147, prepares to take off from the flight deck of Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73). George Washington is underway in support of carrier qualifications.            

                Embarked Airwing Conducts F-35C Cyclic Operations Aboard George Washington            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Seaman Tyler Crowley

VIRIN: 231205-N-UM953-2030
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS

______________________ 

2014-1073

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 10/770,937.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before PROST, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand this appeal for 

further proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board. 

A Board decision sustained the examiner’s rejection of 

various claims of John N. Gross’s patent application as 

obvious over a combination of prior art references. After 

the Board’s decision, Gross requested a rehearing arguing 

that the Board’s decision constituted a new ground of 

rejection. The Board disagreed and denied the rehearing. 

Gross timely appealed to this court.

Case: 14-1073 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2014
2 IN RE JOHN GROSS

The parties state that Gross now intends to raise the 

new ground of rejection issue on appeal. Because this 

court agrees with the parties that it would be best for all 

involved to remand this case to the Board for reconsideration of Gross’s new ground of rejection argument in light 

of Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the 

parties’ joint motion to remand the case for additional 

proceedings is granted. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is 

vacated and the case is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s26

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 27, 2014

Case: 14-1073 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2014
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Nationwide Life Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, W.G. Jurgensen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 1, 2006



|                               |  | 
|------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ W.G. Jurgensen            
|Name: W.G. Jurgensen          
|Title: Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nationwide Life Insurance Company and will be retained by Nationwide Life Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Clear All

        11 September 2022    

                    Deployed Truman Strike Group Sailors Become U.S. Citizens                 
                ATLANTIC OCEAN —Petty Officers 3rd Class John Gacad and Francisian Manaog became U.S. citizens during a naturalization ceremony aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Sep. 9.            

        08 September 2022    

                    USS San Jacinto Returns Home from 9-Month Deployment                  
                NORFOLK, Va.-The Ticonderoga class guided-missile cruiser USS San Jacinto (CG 56) returned to its homeport of Naval Station Norfolk after a nine-month deployment, Sept. 8.             

        18 June 2022    

                    USS Harry S. Truman Arrives in Marseille, France                 
                The crew of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) arrived in Marseille, France for a scheduled port visit, June 18, 2022.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TRISTAN JAMAL GRANT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30106

D.C. No. 3:12-CR-00063-SLG-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 14, 2014** 

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Tristan Jamal Grant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled

substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

FILED

AUG 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(b)(1)(C), and his resulting 47-month sentence. We affirm Grant’s conviction and

sentence.

1. Grant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Grant

was found with 1.69 grams of crack cocaine divided into 13 individual doses, a

scale with cocaine residue, multiple cell phones, and over $1,000 in cash. Prior to

his arrest, law enforcement observed two individuals enter the back seat of Grant’s

car and leave in less than two minutes. Although Grant explained how most of the

evidence could be consistent with Grant’s personal use of crack, the government

offered a competing characterization consistent with distribution of crack. Taking

the evidence in a light favorable to the government, a rational jury could have

agreed with the government and found Grant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

United States v. Norwood, 603 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2010). 

2. The district court properly applied a two-level obstruction of justice

sentencing enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The district court found that Grant

perjured himself by testifying that the crack cocaine was intended only for personal

use, not distribution. The materiality and willful intent behind the false statement,

which was designed to negate an element of the charged offense, are apparent from

the record. See United States v. Ancheta, 38 F.3d 1114, 1118–19 (9th Cir. 1994). 

2
Because we find that the enhancement was properly based on Grant’s trial

testimony, we do not reach alternate bases for the enhancement. Id. at 1119. 

3. The district court properly applied a two level enhancement for

possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). 

The district court did not clearly err by finding Grant possessed a firearm by a

preponderance of the evidence because there was ample evidence supporting

Grant’s awareness of the gun. Nor was it an abuse of discrection to apply the

enhancement because, given the record, it was not “clearly improbable that the

weapon was connected with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Application Note

11(A). 

AFFIRMED. 

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 333-74076) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, (Form
S-8, No. 333-41090) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, the 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-3 No. 333-46870)
pertaining to the registration of 165,000 shares of common stock, and (Form S-3
No. 333-53006) pertaining to the registration of 120,847 shares of common stock,
of our report dated January 24, 2002, except for Note 17, as to which the date
is February 19, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Newport Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Orange County, California
March 25, 2002