alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Creshawn Dupri Howard, * From the 104th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 22485-B.

Vs. No. 11-22-00065-CR * November 16, 2023

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Kings Road Entertainment, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:


The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A - 1 for the fiscal quarter ended October
      31,
      2004 (the "Form 10-QSB/A") of the Company fully complies with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in the Form 10-QSB/A 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
      Kings Road Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by Kings Road Entertainment,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Dated:
      June 30, 2008




/s/
                Philip HolmesPhilip
                HolmesPresident/s/
                Robert KainzRobert
                KainzChief
                Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E997-E998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      IN RECOGNITION OF THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY FOUNDATION

                                 ______

                       HON. ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 10, 1995
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize 
the Mexican-American Opportunity Foundation [MAOF] as they inaugurate 
their new facilities on Thursday, May 11, 1995.
  MAOF was founded in 1962 by Mr. Dionicio Morales in Los Angeles, CA, 
and for over 33 years it has provided educational and charitable 
assistance to the general public and the Latino community. MAOF has 
developed and administered projects, programs, research and related 
activities on behalf of the socially and economically disadvantaged 
youth and adults of our community.
  One of the special projects began when Mr. Morales and MAOF 
recognized the plight of Latina women. Eighteen years ago, MAOF created 
``Visiones Hispanas'', a Hispanic women's conference that focuses on 
Hispanic women's needs and provides direction on career and education 
opportunities.
  In furthering their mission to assist economically disadvantaged 
individuals, MAOF has established child care development programs. MAOF 
founded these centers to provide a bilingual/bicultural learning 
environment for children. It is a developmental program where children, 
whether they speak only English or only Spanish, become an integral 
component of this educational interaction with the teachers. 
Additionally, MAOF sponsors child nutrition programs, in conjunction 
with their child [[Page E998]] care development centers, to ensure that 
the children are receiving a nutritious diet.
  In short, MAOF has been at the forefront of helping the people of the 
community advance and prosper through work and education.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise to recognize one of the 
finest community organizations in the country, the Mexican-American 
Opportunity Foundation, and its founder, Mr. Dionicio Morales. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in congratulating them and wishing them continued 
success in their new facility.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7284

GEORGE LEE LAWRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOATS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-1219-PJM) Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Lee Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lawrence v. Moats , No. CA-97-1219-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 18, 1998). We also find that the bench conference from which Appellant was excluded was not a stage of the proceedings during which his presence was constitutionally required. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40463 Summary Calendar

DONALD MOODY,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-10

-------------------- February 5, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Donald Moody, Texas prisoner # 677242, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition for writ

of error coram nobis, challenging his 19 93 conviction for two

counts of attempted murd er. Although Moody contends that the

district court erred in failing to consider the merits of his
petition, he briefs no argument challenging the reasons for theNo. 02-40463 -2-

district court’s denial, and he has thus waived the sole ground for
appeal. S ee Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993). Even if the argument has not been waived, Moody cannot show

any error in the district court’s judgment because, as the district

court determined, he remains in custody on the challenged
conviction, rendering him ineligible for coram nobis relief. See

Jimenez v. Trominski , 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996).
Moody’s appeal is wholly without arguable merit, is

frivolous, and is therefore DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR

. 42.2; Howard v.
King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We CAUTION Moody that

a ny additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the
imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Moody is further

CAUTIONED to review pending appeals to ensure that they do not
raise arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED

.
R C KNOX

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 3039

_______________ ______________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

R C Knox, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RO WE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ. CONCUR.
NOT RECO MMENDED FOR FULL -TEXT PU BLICATIO N File Name: 04a0019n.06 Filed: October 12, 2004 No. 03-3847 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA LS FOR THE SIXTH CI RCUIT
MARY D’AGOSTINO, Plainti ff-Appell ant,
v. VER-A-FAST CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FR O M THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHER N DISTRI CT OF OHIO

Before: KENNEDY, DAUGHTREY, and C OOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Mary D’Agostino, filed this action agai nstVer-A-Fa st,
a firm that provides t elemarketing services, after the company failed to hire her to be a “verifier .” She claimed that Ver-A-Fast discriminated against her based on her disability i n violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Ohio state law. The di strict co urt granted sum mary judgment for Ver-A-Fast, finding that verifiers were independent contractors, not employees, and theref ore were not covered by the anti-discrimination laws.
On appeal, the plaintiff first complains that the district

court mis applied the summa ry judgment st andard required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), because the judge dismissed t h e action after “[w]eighing all the above factors . . . .” “Weighing,” the pl aintiff insists, “is impermissible in the summary judgment situation.” This statement is correct, of course, but03-3847

- 2 -

onlyas far as weighing factual m atters is con cerned. In this case , howeve r, the factors mentioned by the district court were the legal aspects of the analysi s necessa ry to determine whether the defendant’s “verifiers” were employees or independ ent contractors. The district court decided, after applyi ng the correct standard, that they were the latter rather tha n the form er and, th erefore, n ot covere d by the A ct. Having h ad the ben efit of oral argument, and having studied the briefs and the record on appeal, we are not convinced that the distri ct court erred in dismissing the complaintagainst

the defe ndant. Because the reasons why summary judgment should be granted to the defendant have been thoroughly and correctly a rticulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion bythis cou rt would be superf luous. W e therefo re affirm the judgment of the district court based on the reasoning set o ut in that court’s memorandum of opinion dated May 15, 2003.
News United States Air Force
 Connecting Cyberspace and AirspacePublished Nov. 16, 2021
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Makensie Cooper
                **JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii (AFNS)  --**
                The 747th Cyberspace Squadron, the Air Force’s first cyberspace squadron, is now performing operations with the 535th Airlift Squadron with its Mission Defense Team aboard the **C-17 Globemaster III**.
The MDT is made up of a team of cyber and communication professionals designated to defend a specific aircraft, preventing adversaries from invading the airspace and manipulating aircraft data.
“The MDT actually stood up in 2017, and has been designated as the lead MDT team for the C-17 platform for the entire Air Force,” said Master Sgt. Justin Young, 747th CYS cyber transport technician. “We have a crew of three and we do mission planning and mission briefs, we sit crew for a set number of hours, and then we do a debrief just like the pilots do.”
The MDT is constantly monitoring the airspace to defend critical assets across the Air Force from adversary cyber attacks.
“There is absolutely a growing threat that adversaries can manipulate data across any terrain to include airframes, so our job is to defend cyberspace and prevent that from happening,” Young said.
Cyberspace Airmen monitor cyberspace for abnormalities such as data manipulation and false information readings to prevent interference and jamming.
“Abnormalities are important to monitor because we need to understand everything that happens in the cyber domain if we are going to defend it,” said Senior Airman Allan Larson, 747th CYS mission defense operator. “If we do not understand it, then we don't know if it is a threat or not.”
The 747th CYS is building up its mission set around **Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam** by partnering with the 19th Fighter Squadron and Navy facilities to protect the industrial control systems, paving a way for the rest of the Air Force to follow suit.
“It is pretty amazing to see the capabilities that we are able to do, and how fast our Airmen have been able to completely change their mindset on how they approach comm and cyber,'' Young said. “It is pretty mind blowing that we can do this, and that we did it so quickly.”FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



cyberspace squadron 



C-17 Globemaster III 



MIssion Defense Team 



MDT 



Comms 



cyber 



security 



data 



readiness 



innovation 



JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam 



PACAF 



Pacific Air Forces 



747th Cyberspace Squadron 



535th Airlift Squadron
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0060

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL LEE CAMERON,

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 16, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 10 2020

09/10/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0060
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                            TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


                  In connection with the quarterly report of Engineered
Support Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July
31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Gerald A. Potthoff, Vice Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

         (1) The Report complies with Sections 13(a) and 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.


Date:       September 9, 2005
      ----------------------------


By:   /s/ Gerald A. Potthoff
      ----------------------------
      Gerald A. Potthoff
      Vice Chairman and Chief
      Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Engineered Support Systems, Inc. and will be retained by
Engineered Support Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         549,819                 549,819
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,534                   3,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,475                   2,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               916,469                 916,469
<PP&E>                                          39,887                  39,887
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 986,355                 986,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,656                 107,656
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,589                   7,589
<COMMON>                                           325                     325
<OTHER-SE>                                     870,785                 870,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   986,355                 986,355
<SALES>                                              0                 259,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                 259,124
<CGS>                                                0                     193
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                     193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               138,763                 412,364
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,833                  54,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,596)               (208,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (143,596)               (208,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (143,596)               (208,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)                  (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)                  (0.08)
        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 16 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 16

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2007

 Mr. King of Iowa introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 Department of the Air Force announces preferred locations for STARCOM HQ, 3 DeltasPublished May 31, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force selected **Patrick Space Force Base**, Florida, as the preferred location to host the Space Training and Readiness Command Headquarters, along with Space Delta 10. **Kirtland Air Force Base**, New Mexico, is the preferred location for Space Delta 11 and **Schriever SFB**, Colorado, is the preferred location for Space Delta 12.
STARCOM, one of three **U.S. Space Force** field commands, is responsible for the deliberate development, education and training of space professionals in addition to the development of space warfighting doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures, and the operational test and evaluation of Space Force systems.Space Delta 10, which is responsible for doctrine and wargaming, is expected to also be located at Patrick SFB, Florida. This delta develops Space Force doctrine and tactics, conducts the service’s Lessons Learned program and executes and supports wargames to adequately posture space forces and designated joint and allied partners.Space Delta 11 is expected to be located at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, and is responsible for all ranges and aggressors. This delta delivers realistic, threat-informed test and training environments through the provision of live, virtual and constructive range and combat replication capabilities.Space Delta 12 is expected to be located at Schriever SFB, Colorado, and is responsible for test and evaluation. This delta prepares space forces to prevail in contested, degraded and operationally-limited environments through the independent test and evaluation of Space Force capabilities and delivery of timely, accurate and expert information in support of weapon system acquisition, operational acceptance and readiness decisions.
The decision to host STARCOM HQ and the three deltas at their respective bases came after conducting site surveys at each location to assess their ability to facilitate the mission and infrastructure capacity, while accounting for community support, environmental factors and cost.
The Department of the Air Force will now conduct environmental impact analyses at each base, which are expected to be completed later this year before final decisions are made.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



STARCOM HQ 



Patrick SFB 



Florida 



Space Training and Readiness Command 



Space Delta 10 



Space Delta 11 



Space Delta 12 



Kirtland AFB 



Schriever SFB 



readiness 



space force