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

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Soldier Accounted For From Korean War (Mazzulla, A.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Case 1:07-cr-00357-CM Document 40 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22574]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD05-05-126]
RIN 1625-AA08


Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Approaches to 
Annapolis Harbor, Spa Creek and Severn River, Annapolis, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations at 
33 CFR 100.511 during the Eastport Yacht Club Lights Parade, a marine 
event to be held December 10, 2005, on the waters of Spa Creek and the 
Severn River at Annapolis, Maryland. These special local regulations 
are necessary to control vessel traffic due to the confined nature of 
the waterway and expected vessel congestion during the event. The 
effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area for 
the safety of event participants, spectators and vessels transiting the 
event area.

DATES: 33 CFR 100.511 will be enforced from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on 
December 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Houck, Marine Events 
Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins 
Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21226-1971, and (410) 576-2674.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Eastport Yacht Club will sponsor a 
lighted boat parade on the waters of Spa Creek and the Severn River at 
Annapolis, Maryland. The event will consist of approximately 50 boats 
traveling at slow speed along two separate parade routes in Annapolis 
Harbor. The participating boats will range in length from 10 to 60 
feet, and each will be decorated with holiday lights. In order to 
ensure the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels, 
33 CFR 100.511 will be enforced for the duration of the event. Under 
provisions of 33 CFR 100.511, vessels may not enter the regulated area 
without permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator 
vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a 
navigable channel. Because these restrictions will be in effect for a 
limited period, they should not result in a significant disruption of 
maritime traffic.
    In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided 
extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine 
information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust 
their plans accordingly.

    Dated: November 2, 2005.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-22574 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 12
- 00323
- CV

BRENDA PARRAMORE DAV IS APPELLANT
V.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUS TEE FOR SASCO MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005

- RF3 APPELLEE

---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- On August 6, 2012, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, attempting to appeal an order that was signed on June 6, 2012. No post

- judgment motion was filed to extend the appellate deadline, so the notic e of appeal was due July 6, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). On August 22, 2012, we sent Appellant a letter notifying

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

her of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this case because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with this court, on or before September 4, 2012, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Having r eceived no response, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f). We also dismiss Appellant’s “Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession” for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; L IVINGSTON, C.J .; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DELIVERED: October 11, 2012
EXHIBIT 31.2
                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Scott Thompson, certify that:


1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  form  10-QSB  of The  X-Change
Corporation,


2.Based on my knowledge,  this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


3.Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,   and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.


4.The small business  issuer's other  certifying  officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in exchange act rules  13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:


a)designed  such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to the small  business  issuer,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b)evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and  procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report on such evaluation; and


c)disclosed  in this report any change in the small business  issuer's  internal
control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small  business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business  issuer's  fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual  report) that has  materially  affected,  or is
reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the small business  issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and


5.The small business  issuer's other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):


a)all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in  the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect  the small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and


b)any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or  other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.



Date: May 20, 2005



By:/s/ Scott Thompson
Scott Thompson, Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 18





January 30, 2003



Mr. Larry Maingot

Controller

Bairnco Corporation

Suite 432

300 Primera Boulevard

Lake Mary, Florida 32746



Dear Mr. Maingot:



Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Bairnco Corporation included in its Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2002 describes a change in the actuarial valuation measurement date for its pension plans from September 30 to November 30.  According to management of the Company, the change in measurement date was made to align the valuation more closely with the Companys December 31 fiscal year end and to facilitate the annual budgeting and planning process.  There are no authoritative criteria for determining a preferable actuarial valuation measurement date based on the particular circumstances; however, we conclude that such change in the actuarial valuation measurement date is an acceptable change which, based on your business judgment to make this change and for the stated reasons, is preferable in your circumstances.



Very truly yours,







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
#### STATE v. BIDDIX

No. 266 PC

Case below: 46 NC App 606

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980.
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 16 Filed 07/07/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 16 Filed 07/07/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. MICHAEL SMITH, Respondent.

No. 12571

April 30, 1980

609 P.2d 1236

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *Joel M. Cooper,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Michael L. Miller,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Respondent Michael Smith was charged in a criminal complaint with (1) battery with intent to commit robbery (NRS 200.400), and (2) conspiracy to commit robbery (NRS 199.480). A preliminary examination was scheduled in the justice’s court for February 26, 1980. On that day the prosecution filed a motion for a continuance supported by an affidavit stating that the victim of the crime, Joseph Wisniewski, who was an essential witness, was unable to be present. Wisniewski, a resident of Illinois, could not travel to Nevada on the day the preliminary examination was scheduled because of inclement *382weather at O’Hare Airport in Chicago, but could be present shortly thereafter.

The magistrate granted a continuance for one day. Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court contending our holding in Ormound v. Sheriff, 95 Nev. 173, 591 P.2d 258 (1979) required that the charges be dismissed. The district judge agreed and granted the petition. This appeal followed.

In *Ormound*we held that “the procedures of the [Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, NRS 174.395 *et seq.]*must be utilized to support a finding that the prosecuting attorney has made a good faith effort to obtain the attendance of a necessary witness who resides in another state where the Act has been adopted.” *Id.*at 175, 591 P.2d at 259. In *Ormound*the prosecution’s disregard of the aforementioned act constituted willful failure to comply with important procedural rules, thus precluding the granting of a continuance under DCR 21 (now DCR 14).

In the instant case, the district judge, following *Ormound,*granted the habeas petition because the prosecution had not utilized the act to secure the attendance of Wisniewski. However, we believe that in the context of this case, the rule set forth in *Ormound*does not apply. Here, it was not necessary to use the provisions of the act to secure Wisniewski’s attendance because he was willing and prepared to travel to Nevada. The sole reason for his failure to appear at the appointed time was inclement weather, not a lack of good faith efforts on the part of the prosecution.

Under these circumstances, a willful failure to comply with important procedural rules did not occur, and the magistrate properly granted the continuance. Accordingly, the order of the district court granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
#### BANK v. SHARPE

No. 180PC

Case below: 49 N.C. App.693

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 March 1981.
I!NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERU DIS'fI<ICT OF NEW YORK ....................................................................... X 

LU;WUMBA BANDELE, ct al., 

Plaintiffs, 

STIPLLATION 

THE CITY OF KEW YORK, et 81.. 07 CV 3339 

Defenda~~ts. ..---.~-~..~--..~--...-.-.-....--...~~.~~..~~~.~....~.-.-----.-- X 

IT 1s IlEREBY AGKEED TO AND STIPULATED by and between the pal-tics that liic time 

for the defendant City of Ncw York to answer or ollicrwise respond to thc complailit is cnlargcd to 

Dated: New York, New I'ork 

Oclobcr 25. 1007 

k;AM,\U KARL FRANKLIN 

Ccntcr tbr Constitutional Rights 

666 Broadway, 7"' Floor 

Nuw York, NY 10012 

(7-12) 614-6445 

By: - 

Franklin (KFb)? 

b4ICIlAEL ,X. CXR1)OZO 

Corporati011 Coi~liscl 

of the City oSNcw York 

Attonicy Tor Ilci'cndanl Thc City oI'New York 

100 Church Slrc-t 

Ncu. York. SY 10007 

(212) 788-0S92 

By: 

Assistant Corporation Counscl 

SO ORDERED: 

L! S.D .I. 

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 5 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 31 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 31 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 31 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 31 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 4
E ORNEY GENERAL 

Mr. J. S. Bogles, Chairman Opinion No. WV-428 

Texas State Board of Registration 

for Public Surveyors Re: Can A Registered ProAustin, Texas fessional Engineer who 

is not registered as a 

Public Surveyor legally 

do boundary surveying 

for the public in Texas? 

Dear Mr. Boyles: 

We have received your letter of April 17, in which you 

ask our opinion on the following question: 

"Can a Registered Professional mgineer who 

is not registered as a Public Surveyor legally do 

boundary surveying for the public in Texas?" 

You state that you are in possession of information that 

certain Professional Engineers who are not registered as a Registered Public Surveyor are conducting boundary surveys and claiming exemption under Subsection (c) of Section 3, Article 5282a, 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

Regulatory authority over Public Surveyors Ls vested in 

the State Board of Registration for Public Surveyors by Article 

5282a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. Such being the source 

of the Board's authority, the Board is subject to the limitations 

and exceptions in such Article. 

Section 6 of such Article reads in part as follows: 

"From and after January first following the 

effective date of this Act, no person except those 

exempted from the operation of this Act as provided 

for in Section 3 hereof, shall engage or continue 

in the practice of Public Surveying as defined 

herein unless such person shall be registered as 

provided herein . . . .' 

Section 3 of such Article, enumerating those persons 

exempted from the provisions of the Act, reads in part as follows: 

11 . . . a . 
Mr. J. S. Boyles, page 2 WW-428 

"(c) Registered Professional Engineer when 

practicing his profession as authorlied by law. 

#f II 

. . . . . 

The fact that the disciplines of certain engineering 

pursuits may or may not include adequate preparation in the 

measurement of the earth's surface is for the consideration of 

the Legislature in promulgating the statute regulating the 

various professions. The Legislature has expressly exempted 

Registered Professional Engineers from the purview of Article 

5282a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. In our opinion, and 

you are so advised, a Professional Engineer, who is fully registered in compliance with the statutes regulating his profession, 

is not required to register as a Public Surveyor under Article 

5282a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, in order to legally do 

boundary surveying for the public in Texas. 

SUMMARY 

A Registered Professional Engineer who is 

not registered as a Public Surveyor may 

legally do boundary surveying for the public in Texas. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

By s/Tom I. McFarling 

Tom I. McFarling 

Assistant 

TIM:wb:mg:wc 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Mrs. Mary K. Wall 

J. Milton Richardson 

Linward Shivers 

Henry G. Braswell 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15029-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
#### In re: Kenneth Adolphus HINTON, Petitioner.

No. 05-3019.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 10, 2005.

Kenneth Adolphus Hinton, Bowie, MD, pro se.

Before SENTELLE, GARLAND, and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the motion for waiver of fees; and the motion for leave to file a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for waiver of fees be dismissed as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion be denied. The Supreme Court has not made either *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), or *United States v. Booker,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. *See, e.g., Green v. United States,*397 F.3d 101, 2005 WL 237204, *1 (2d Cir. Feb.2, 2005) (denying motion for leave to file successive § 2255 motion because the Supreme Court has not made either *Blakely*or *Booker*retroactive to cases on collateral review); *United States v. Anderson,*396 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir.2005) (same).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 92 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 92 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1   KNIGHT INC. 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 on Form 10-Q of Knight Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Knight Inc. and will be retained by Knight Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Dated:  August
	9, 2007/s/ Richard D. KinderRichard D. Kinder
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer