alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Clear All

        14 March 2023    

                    Secretary of the Navy Visits Hampton Roads                 
                Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro visited the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, March 10, to recognize commands and Sailors who supported recovery of a high-altitude surveillance balloon.            

        01 February 2012    

                    Bataan Amphibious Ready Group Returns from Deployment                 
                Nearly 2,000 Sailors aboard the ships of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (BATARG) are scheduled to return to their homeports Tuesday, Feb. 7 following a 10 1/2-month deployment supporting operations in the U.S. Navy's 5th and 6th Fleets areas of responsibility            

#####  

##### 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6050

KAYIE SHAUNE WRIGHT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOHNNY HAWKINS; BILLY O. COOPER; ELDRIDGE WALKER; APPLEWHITE; GILLIO; TILLEY; WILSON; JANE DOE, Psychiatrist, Polk Correctional Institution; SERGEANT WILSON; MR. FAULCON; ALFREDA THREAT; JOHN DOE, Maintenance Worker; KIERAH BANKS WILLIAMS; D. CHAMBLISS; OFFICER CARMON; OFFICER PEARSALL; OFFICER CLERENA; OFFICER GREENE; OFFICER SWEET; OFFICER GARDNER; CHARLES JOHNSON; CASE WORKER JONES; PSYCHIATRIST FIELDS; JANE DOE, Psychiatrist, Central Prison , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , Distri ct Judge. ( 5:20

- ct

- 03137

- BO )

Submitted : May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kayie Shaune Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kayie Shaune Wright appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversi ble error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Wright v. Hawkins , No. 5:20

- ct

- 03137

- BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

mater ials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COINSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                5,500
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        12,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                          2,662
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     24,770
<PP&E>                                               37,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                       19,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       79,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                25,070
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                199
<OTHER-SE>                                           44,283
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         79,793
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    315,023
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       151,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    150,674
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      12,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3,976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   8,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          8,079
<EPS-BASIC>                                             .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .37


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6521
CARL A. EUBANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY A. O’BRIEN, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00107-sgw) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carl A. Eubanks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeEubanks v. O’Brien , No. 7:06-cv-107-SGW (W.D. Va., Feb. 16, 2006; filed Feb. 28, 2006 & entered Mar. 1, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0478 STATE OF MONTANA,

P laintiff and Appellee , v. JOSIAH BRACKETT ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of

A ppellee ’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Dec em

ber 24 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2023

11/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0478
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-9 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-9 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-9 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Edward A. Keible, Jr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Endwave Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 29, 2005    /s/ Edward A. Keible, Jr.   Edward A. Keible, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Clear All

        22 August 2023    

                    USS Augusta to Commission in Eastport, Maine                 
                The future Independence-variant littoral combat ship USS Augusta (LCS 34) will join the active fleet with a commissioning ceremony at Eastport, Maine on September 30.            

#####  

##### 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
EXHIBIT 23.2





[LETTERHEAD OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.]





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS





We hereby consent to the use of our name and the information from our report regarding our estimates of reserves and future
net revenues from the production and sale of those reserves in the Annual Report on 10K of Pogo Producing Company for the year ended December 31, 2001 and to the incorporation by reference thereof into Pogo Producing Companys previously
filed Registration Statement File Nos. 3354969, 33304233, 33372129, 33375105, 3337510501, 3337510502, 33374861, 33342426, 33342428, 33360800, 33367324, 333-59426 and
33365548.





/s/    RYDER SCOTT COMPANY,
L.P.Ryder Scott Company, L.P.





Houston, Texas


March 12, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen A. Beach, Appellant.

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered October 4, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was indicted for two counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony *(see,*Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Following plea-bargaining negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was sentenced as indicated at the time of his plea and in accord with the plea agreement as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 4 to 8 years. However, defendant’s maximum sentence should have been at least nine years *(see,*Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [b]) with a minimum of one half of that *(see,*Penal Law § 70.06 [4] [b]). The sentence defendant did in fact receive was therefore illegal and, by operation of law, cannot stand *(see, People v Shelton,*100 AD2d 775). Since the sentence promised at the time of defendant’s plea of guilty cannot be fulfilled, thus denying defendant the benefit of the plea bargain, he is entitled to vacatur of the sentence and should be given the opportunity to move to withdraw his plea of guilty *(see, People v Shelton, supra; People v Rodriguez,*70 AD2d 509; *People v Miller,*38 AD2d 745, 746).

Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence; matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# SUMMARY:

The Foundation modified a permit to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-541; Code of Federal Regulation Title 45, Part 670).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

## Description of Permit and Modification

                        On September 25, 1998, the National Science Foundation issued a permit (ACA #99-009) to Dr. William R. Fraser after posting a notice in the August 27, 1998                         **Federal Register.**                         Public comments were not received. A request to modify the permit was posted in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 13, 2001. No public comments were received. The modification, issued by the Foundation on April 20, 2001, allows the permit holder to capture, study and release up to 50 Emperor penguins, 100 Gentoo penguins, 100 Chinstrap penguins, and 100 each of Snow, Cape and Antarctic Petrels. The data collected will help to access how annual environmental variability affects seabird diets, breeding success, growth rates, and population trends.                    

*Location:*                         Antarctic Peninsula.                    

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-10675  Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 4      Filed 07/17/2007     Page 1 of 1
(September 19, 1989)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *806Rodrigo Munoz, Appellant.

Appeal from the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.), rendered on January 20, 1987, unanimously dismissed *(People v Sea-berg,*74 NY2d 1, 11). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Minerly, SeniorFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ James C.  Minerly                                    |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                     |
|   | James C.  Minerly  Senior Financial Officer  May 7, 2004 |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent,Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
Exhibit 99.2



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 ProQuest Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 28, 2002 hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his knowledge: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    KEVIN G.
GREGORY                                                                 
|Kevin G. Gregory, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary



March 27, 2003
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                          Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1998 and 1997


Note 11. Contingent Liability for Rescission of Capital Stock Sales:

         Since its inception, the Company has issued and sold 11,222,699 shares
         of its common stock.  Although most of these shares were registered
         with the State of Iowa, none of these shares were registered for sale
         under the federal securities law.  These shares were issued and sold in
         reliance either upon the exemption provided in Section 4 (2) or Section
         3 (a) (11) of the Securities Act of 1933.

         The Company feels that any possible shares and federal contingent
         liabilities that may have existed because of the issuance of securities
         which may not have been exempt from registration under the Securities
         Act of 1933 and unless the subject of an existing legal proceeding
         filed appropriately may now be extinguished as a result of the new Iowa
         Uniform Securities Act which became effective on January 1, 1976 under
         Section 613 of that Act, liability must now be ascertained by looking
         to the statute in effect at the time that the stock issue was sold.
         The two year statute of limitations in effect on January 14, 1973, at
         the time of the closing of the issue, has run as have the other
         applicable federal statutes of limitation. As a result, wit h the
         exception of the Federal and State Tolling Doctrines, possible
         contingent liabilities may no longer exist.

Note 12. Contingent Liability on Pending Litigation:

         On November 2, 1973, in U. S. District Court a Final Judgment of
         permanent Injunction was brought against the Company because of
         complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
         Injunction enjoins the Company from failing to file timely and proper
         reports as required by Section 12 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
         1934.  The Company is currently complying with filing requirements,
         however, it may be subject to subsequent court action and potential
         fine if there are future filing deficiencies.

Note 13: Conflicts of Interest:

         There were directors, officers, and stockholders of Hynes & Howes
         Insurance Counselors, Inc. who had investment interest in other
         affiliated companies.  These affiliated companies provided services to
         each other, they also used common management and provided financial
         assistance as needed.  Consequently, potential conflicts of interest
         exist and may result in either a benefit or a detriment to the
         operations of the Company.
Case 1:07-cv-01524-AKH Document 20 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01524-AKH Document 20 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01524-AKH Document 20 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-3258

_____________________________

AVA ELECTRIS CANNIE aka Eva 

Electris Cannie aka Eva Helene 

Cannie,

Petitioner,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY FSB DBA et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

September 30, 2021

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROWE, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ava Electris Cannie, pro se, Petitioner.

David Rosenberg and Jarrett Cooper of Robertson, Anschutz & 

Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, for Respondent Wilmington Savings

Fund Society FSB.
(85 South. 821)

#### Ex parte LUNDY. LUNDY v. STATE.

(4 Div. 892.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 30, 1920.)

Criminal law <(&wkey;438 — Photograph of deceased admissible.

In a murder trial, photograph of deceased *held,*properly received in evidence.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Charlie Lundy was convicted of murder, his conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals (85 South. 819), and he petitions for certiorari.

Writ denied.

E, O. Baldwin, of Andalusia, for petitioner.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCLELLAN, j.

The questions argued in the brief in support of the application for certiorari were correctly decided by the Court of. Appeals. 85 South. 819. The reference in the opinion of the Court of Appeals to the photograph of the deceased might be interpreted as casting doubt upon the correctness of the action of the trial court in admitting that photograph in evidence. The photo was properly received in evidence. Sanders v. State, 202 Ala. 37, 79 South. 375, 376.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.