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

        14 September 2023    

                    Saildrones Set Sail in Support of U.S. 4th Fleet’s Operation Windward Stack                 
                KEY WEST, Florida – Commercial operators began deploying 10 Saildrone Voyager Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) out to sea today, a critical first step in U.S. 4th Fleet’s Operation Windward Stack.            

#####  

##### 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
Clear All

        08 January 2024    

                    USS McFaul Returns Home from 8-month Deployment                 
                NORFOLK, Va. - The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul (DDG 74) returned to Norfolk, Va., Jan. 4, 2024 after an 8-month deployment to the Atlantic Ocean and U.S. 5th Fleet areas of operations.            

        14 September 2022    

                    Buddhist Pennant Flies aboard Navy Ship for First Time                 
                ATLANTIC OCEAN -  The Buddhist pennant made its first appearance on an underway ship when the blue and white banner was spotted Sept. 11, aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul (DDG 74).            

#####  

##### 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
0.4179591
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 0 - 0 6 05 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CLAY BRADY RIPPLE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including July 25 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court June 23 2022

06/23/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0605
Cary Gagan, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Eric Holder, 

Respondent. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

OCT 2 1 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 1996 

This matter is before the Court on review of petitioner's pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a 

determination that the complaint, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted). 

Petitioner is a Colorado state prisoner. Invoking the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, petitioner seeks to 

compel Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate his claims of organized crime in Colorado. 

Compl. at 1. The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer 

or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 

U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of 

mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) 

(citation omitted). "It is well-settled that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel 

discretionary acts." Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases). 

Similarly, the APA, "empowers a court only to compel an agency 'to perform a ministerial or 

I 

• 
non-discretionary act,' or 'to take action upon a matter, without directing how it shall act.' " 

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55,64 (2004) (quoting Attorney 

General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 108 (1947)). 

The United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to 

investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. As a general rule applicable to the 

circumstances of this case, such decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The complaint therefore will be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A separate Order 

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

c7 ac.JL ~~~~J _ ... 

Date: October j!, 2009 

United States District Judge 

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lester JOHNSON, a/k/a Main, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6435.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Lester Johnson, Appellant pro se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina; Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ * and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*

 Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lester Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not *251made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 26-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 26-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 26-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00196 - CR
LASHA EILEEN SPACEK , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 428th District Court

Hays County, Texas 1 Trial Court No . CR

- 19 - 1300 - D , Honorable Daniel H. Mills , Sitting by Assignment



### April 5 , 2023 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant , Lasha Eileen Spacek, appeals her conviction for theft 2 and sentence to two years ’ confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant ’ s brief w as originally due December 28, 2022, but we granted Appellant’s appointed counsel two extensions to file a brief due to counsel’s caseload

. By letter of February 13, 2023 , we admonished

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.

2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 31.03 (e)(4)(D).2

Appellant’s counsel that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to file a brief by March 27 would result in the appea l be ing abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Appellant’s counsel has not filed a brief or had any further communication with this Court to date. We, therefore, abate th e appea l and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3). Upon remand, the trial court shall determi ne the following: ( 1 ) whether A ppellant still desires to prosecute the appeal; ( 2 ) whether A ppellant is indigent; ( 3 ) why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on behalf of A ppellant; ( 4 ) whether A ppellant ’ s counsel has abandoned the appeal; ( 5 ) whether A ppellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel; ( 6 ) whether new counsel should be appointed; and ( 7 ) if appellant desires to continue the appeal, the date the C ourt may expect A ppellant ’ s brief to be filed. The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this C ourt by May 5 , 2023

. If it is determined that A ppellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied the e ffective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint new counsel; the name, address, email address, phone number, and state bar number of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings.3

Should counsel file a brief on o r before April 19 , 2023, he is directed to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall not be required to take any further action. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Shock, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered May 27, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

*822Defendant and a companion were charged with two separate private residence break-ins while armed with a .22-caliber rifle. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to first degree burglary in full satisfaction of the multiple count indictment and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 7 to 21 years’ imprisonment. On this appeal, defendant urges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he maintains that counsel was remiss in failing to seek withdrawal of the guilty plea once defendant explained he was under the influence of alcohol and prescribed medication during the incident. We hold otherwise.

During a thorough plea allocution, County Court specifically advised defendant that intoxication was not a defense, but could be relevant on the question of intent *(see, People v Perry,*61 NY2d 849). Defendant indicated he understood and confirmed that he knew what he was doing during the burglary. As such, we discern no ineffectiveness in the representation provided. Defendant’s further characterization of the sentence as excessive is also unpersuasive. Although the prosecution recommended a sentence of 6 to 18 years’ imprisonment, County Court emphatically accepted the plea bargain with no promises as to sentencing. Notably, the rifle was discharged during this incident and the victims were transported around town as veritable "hostages” while defendant and his companion attempted to cash their checks. Given the serious nature of this crime, the sentence imposed — which was statutorily authorized *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [b]; [3] [b]) — was not improvident.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


December 10, 2019


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 1974


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


BNY Atlantic Terminal


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 1974 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-233749 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        06 February 2023    

                    Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Hosts Arctic Training Exercise Snow Crab Ex                 
                LITTLE FALLS, Minn. –U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) commenced Snow Crab Exercise (Snow Crab Ex) 23-1 Feb. 4, 2023 following the arrival of U.S Navy EOD Mobile Units (EODMU) and Navy Divers at Camp Ripley in Little Falls, Minn.            

#####  

##### 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
RIGL  CORPORATION  FORM  10-QSB  THIRD  QUARTER  ENDING  JUNE  30,  1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      499558
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              3224218
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                   5034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           5858365
<PP&E>                                      524471
<DEPRECIATION>                              190746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            15866272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1320270
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     39449
<OTHER-SE>                                14433156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              15866272
<SALES>                                    1399497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1399497
<CGS>                                       489100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               116914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1807842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1028745)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1028745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1028745)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.08)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,016
<INVENTORY>                                     33,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,258
<PP&E>                                          12,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,934
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,731
<SALES>                                        152,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,103
<CGS>                                           76,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,037
<INCOME-TAX>                                       792
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 19 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 19 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 19 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 40 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 40 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0180 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DOUGLAS BAERTSCH,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 2 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

August 24 2023

08/24/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0180
#                                                                         Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Changes Command                                                                    

##### by Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist Kim Martinez

30 September 2022

                Rear Adm. Bradley Andros, renders a salute to Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, after relieving Rear Adm. Joseph DiGuardo as commander, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), during a ceremony at Assault Craft Unit 4 onboard Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Sept. 30.  The ceremony also marks DiGuardo’s retirement from the Navy after 31 years of dedicated service. NECC is the Navy’s single functional command for 20,000 Active Duty and Reserve expeditionary forces, and is the central management for the readiness, resources, manning, training and equipping of those entities.  The command enables Navy Expeditionary Combat Forces the ability to execute combat, combat support and combat service support missions across the full spectrum of naval, joint, and combined operations, allowing access from the sea and freedom of action throughout the littorals and inland operating environments. (U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist Kim Martinez.)            

                NECC Holds Change of Command            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist Kim Martinez

VIRIN: 220830-N-EP471-0117

Tags:
**NECC**NECF**SEABEE**MESF**riverine**ELSG**NEIC**EXWDC**eod**UCT**DIVER**USFF**USFFC;U.S. Fleet Forces Command

Terms:
**Capabilities and Communities**Advancement & Promotion**Awards, Honors & Recognition**CTF68**NECC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH DINGLER,
Petitioner ,

v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the United States, et al. , Respondents

. Civil Action No. 18-527 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM ORDER Joseph Dingler, proceeding pro se , has filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum.” See Dkt. 1. A writ of habeas corpus a d testificandum is “the commo n law writ for the production of witne sses who are con fined in jail a nd who are thus beyond the reach of the ordinary subpoena.” Neufield v. United States , 118 F.2d 375, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1941). Petitioner does seek the produc tion of any witness. Instead, h e claims that the Chief Justice of the United States and the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court “deni ed Petitioner [a]ccess to US jurisdiction,” Dkt. 1 at 11; that their “restraints on liberty are severe,” id. at 12; that there has been “judicial over-reach by uncons titutional legislation,” id. at 13; that an “illiberal construction [has been] applie d, [leaving] no access to justice ,” id. at 18; and that he has a “right of access under the petition clause,” id. at 21. As Dingler’s state ment of facts explains, these claims all derive from the Supreme Court’s denial of—or f ailure to accept—his petitions for writs of certiorari and ma ndamus. Dkt. 1 at 2–4. This Cou rt has no jurisdiction to consider challenges to the Supreme Court’ s exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, see, e.g. , In re
Marin , 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (hol ding that a similar cl aim was barred for lack of2 subject matter jurisdiction); id. (“We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any act ion.”); Po Kee Wong v. U.S.
Sol. Gen. , 839 F. Supp. 2d 130, 138 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Plaintiff has identi fied no jurisdictional basis under which this Court woul d have authority to review the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari; i ndeed, there is none.”), or “to correct [any] irre gularities of [the Clerk of the Supreme Court] and com pel him to perform his duty, ” In re Marin , 956 F.2d at 340 (quoting Griffin v. Thompson , 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244, 257 (1844)); Hirsch v. Harris , No. 15-cv-488, 2015 WL 1540490, at *1 ( D.D.C. April 16, 2015) (same ). The Court will, accordingly, DISMISS this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and will DENY Petitioner’s motion for ECF password, Dkt. 2. A separate order will issue.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge

Date: March 28, 2018
Clear All

        23 May 2022    

                    Sailors treated to advance screenings of “Top Gun: Maverick”                 
                Sailors at Naval Air Station Oceana were treated to an advance screening of “Top Gun: Maverick,” at the base theater, May 21.             

#####  

##### 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