alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 45th Space Wing supports ULA’s 100th Atlas launchPublished Oct. 2, 2015
                        
                        
                        45th Space Wing Public Affairs
                **CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The 45th Space Wing supported the United Launch Alliance's 100th launch, an Atlas V 421 rocket flying the Morelos-3 communications satellite for Mexico's Secretariat of Communications and Transportation on Oct. 2.
"Our capabilities in space have always been, and will continue to be, leveraged through partnerships with industry," said Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, the 45th Space Wing commander. "I am very proud of our team and their support of ULA's historic record number of launches since 2006.  We are the nation's premier gateway to space and we stand ready to support."
Lockheed Martin's Commercial Launch Services provided the Atlas V rocket that carried the Morelos-3 to its destination in space from Launch Complex 41 at 6:28 a.m. The satellite is part of the Mexsat constellation of satellites that deliver advanced telecommunications throughout Mexico, providing secure communications for Mexico's national security needs, in addition to providing communications to rural zones as a complement to other existing networks.
Eastern Range instrumentation provides radar tracking, telemetry, communications, command/control sites, camera and optical sites, and other support capabilities such as meteorology. Instrumentation is necessary to safely and successfully conduct civil, commercial, and national security spacelift operations, and ballistic missile tests and evaluation. Eastern Range assets are based on dependable designs and technology and are arrayed in a highly efficient architecture designed to ensure safety of the launch environment and the public at large.45th Space Wing 



cape canaveral air force station 



Florida 



Atlas launch
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24348]

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (10-113)]

NASA Advisory Council; Meeting.

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council.

DATES: Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. (local time). 
Thursday, October 7, 2010, 8 a.m.-12 noon (local time).

ADDRESSES: The AERO Institute, 38256 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 
93550.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marla King, NAC Administrative 
Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, 
Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda for the meeting will include 
reports from the NAC Committees:
--Aeronautics.
--Audit, Finance, and Analysis.
--Commercial Space.
--Education and Public Outreach.
--Exploration.
--Information Technology Infrastructure.
--Science.
--Space Operations.
--Technology and Innovation.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of 
the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Due to 
technical problems associated with original publication, this meeting 
notice is being re-submitted for publication less than 15 days in 
advance.

    Dated: September 23, 2010.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-24348 Filed 9-23-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### In re Marcus Duke SHELTON, Petitioner.

No. 00-7609.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Marcus Duke Shelton, petitioner pro se.

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), seeking to invalidate his 1988 Virginia conviction for petty larceny. To the extent that Shelton seeks review of a Virginia trial court’s denial of his state petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we do not possess jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court. *See Sinclair v. Louisiana,*679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir.1982). Accordingly, we deny Shelton’s petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
<PAGE>


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


Name of Subsidiary                        State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation
------------------                        --------------------------------------
3013439 Nova Scotia Company               Nova Scotia, Canada
504087 N.B. Inc.                          New Brunswick, Canada
COS Information, Inc.                     Quebec, Canada
Electronic Imaging Services, Inc.         Delaware
Laser Mail Services, Inc.                 Ontario, Canada
Lirpaco, Inc.                             Canadian (Federal)
Moreau Promotional Services, Inc.         Ontario, Canada
Vestcom Connecticut, Inc.                 Connecticut
Vestcom Investments, Inc.                 New Jersey
Vestcom Management Solutions Group, Inc.  New Jersey
Vestcom Massachusetts, Inc.               Massachusetts
Vestcom Mid-Atlantic, Inc.                Delaware
Vestcom New England, Inc.                 Rhode Island
Vestcom Northwest, Inc.                   Delaware
Vestcom Retail Solutions Group, Inc.      Missouri
Vestcom Rhode Island Corp.                Rhode Island
Vestcom St. Louis, Inc.                   Delaware
Vestcom Wisconsin, Inc.                   Wisconsin
#### J. M. DUNGAN, Trustee in matter of Farmers Frozen Food Co., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee.

No. 18996.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 12, 1964.

Shapro, Anixter & Aronson, Raymond T. Anixter, Burlingame, Cal., Byers & Jacobs, Gilroy, Cal., James M. Conners, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., of California, Donald J. Maffley, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before ORR, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the judgment of the trial court on the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, In re Farmers Frozen Food Co., 221 F.Supp. 385 (N.D. Cal.1963).
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              THE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF THE TAX SAVINGS BILL

  (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, featuring interactive dialog with John 
Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, ``Forrest Gump'' proved 
that to star in a movie, one not only does not have to be an actor, but 
through modern technology, you do not have to be alive anymore, either.
  Yesterday, by vetoing the $16 billion tax savings bill, the Clinton 
administration proved a similar phenomenon: That is, even a dead 
presidency can continue to enhance its reputation as a big spending 
friend of bureaucracy long after its political life has expired. That 
is right. Without asking anybody, Mr. President just went ahead and 
vetoed.
  For a short while, he will be the hero of the big spenders in 
Washington and the bureaucracy, but the American people will demand: If 
not these cuts, which cuts; if not this rescission, which rescission; 
if not these programs, which programs?
  If you want relevancy, Mr. President, join the debate. Show us where 
you want to save the taxpayers' dollars.

                          ____________________
```
NO. 07-12-00456-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 21, 2013

JORDAN A. SEIBERT, APPELLANT

v.

THE SCOOTER STORE, LTD: JACKIE WALSH AND MICHELLE WALSH, APPELLEES 

 FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY;

NO. C2011-0172A; HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

	On February 13, 2013, the parties to this appeal filed a joint motion to set aside judgment and remand on the basis that the parties have reached a settlement agreement on all matters in controversy.  Because this motion complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B), we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the trial court’s May 14, 2012, and July 10, 2012 summary judgment orders are set aside, without consideration of the merits, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).  The motion further indicates that the parties agree to bear their own costs incurred by this appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).  Because the motion is jointly filed by each of the parties, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

						Mackey K. Hancock

						          Justice

2

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 2, 2019

t0325

Order 

Clerk

April 2, 2019

157349 & (60)(61)(62)(64)(66)(70)(75)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157349

COA: 335045

Muskegon CC: 15-000244-FH

DEMARIO ROBEHIER WADE-BEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for supplemental authorities are GRANTED in 

part, to the extent that the authorities referenced in the motions are considered to be 

support for the defendant’s arguments. The application for leave to appeal the January 

11, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we 

are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The 

motions for judgment of acquittal, for bond, for immediate consideration, to expand the 

record, and to amend the record are DENIED.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**Certificationof Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, John R. Lyon, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of iVOW, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a.               All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data;and

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 31, 2005

 
|                        |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| /s/  John R. Lyon           |   |
| **John R. Lyon**            |   |
| **Chief Executive Officer** |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001040257
<NAME> ZMAX CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,521,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,562,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,160
<INVENTORY>                                    127,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,194,737
<PP&E>                                         477,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,446,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,631,593
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,117
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,766,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,446,362
<SALES>                                      9,916,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,916,276
<CGS>                                        3,478,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,478,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,982,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (282,711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (282,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (282,711)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ismael CESAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-2367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, 2011.

*1140Ismael Cesar, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Ismael Cesar appeals the denial of a rule 8.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. He does not allege that the predicate felony necessary to qualify him as a habitual violent felony offender does not exist as a matter of law, and his sentence is legal. *See Bover v. State,*797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001).

Cesar' was on probation for four offenses including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon when he committed the offenses in this case, 04-011459 CF10A. The aggravated assault conviction qualified him for habitual violent felony offender sentencing. § 775.084(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); *see also State v. Richardson,*915 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2005). Contrary to the arguments in his motion, there was no illegal double enhancement. The consecutive five-year term was imposed for violations of probation in a separate case, 03^4449 CF10A. The offenses did not arise from the same criminal episode and the consecutive sentences are not illegal. *See State v. Hill,*660 So.2d 1384, 1386 (Fla.1995). The circuit court’s order is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

MAY, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1498 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the transportation 

fringe benefit to bicycle commuters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MORAN of 

Virginia, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. FARR, and Mr. CAPUANO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE 

4 BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general 

7 rule for qualified transportation fringe) is amended by 

8 adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(D) Bicycle commuting allowance.’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1498 IH

1 (b) BICYCLE COMMUTING ALLOWANCE DEFINED.— 

2 Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) of such Code (relating to 

3 definitions) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(F) BICYCLE COMMUTING ALLOWANCE.— 

5 The term ‘bicycle commuting allowance’ means 

6 an amount provided to an employee for trans7 portation on a bicycle if such transportation is 

8 in connection with travel between the employ9 ee’s residence and place of employment.’’. 

10 (c) LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION.—Paragraph (2) of 

11 section 132(f) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘sub12 paragraphs (A) and (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs 

13 (A), (B), and (D)’’. 

14 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. Gregory John RUIZ v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1694.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Ruiz, Gregory John; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 02-1010; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01293.

Denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID HESSELTINE

, Appellant,

v.

JODY ELLEN SHERMAN

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 2 3

- 2532

[ July 11, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; James Laird Martz, II , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502022DR003878

.

David L. Hesseltine, Delray Beach, pro se.

Nancy A. Hass of Nancy A. Hass, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URI A M

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J.

, M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BROADVISION
INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AS REPORTED
IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          53,735
<SECURITIES>                                    18,823
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,018)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,857
<PP&E>                                          17,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,276)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       109,309
<OTHER-SE>                                       (497)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,198
<SALES>                                         28,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,940
<CGS>                                            1,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                       334
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,252
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<FN>
<F1>EPS PRIMARY REPRESENTS BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE. THE COMPANY HAS NOT
FILED A RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE RELATING TO THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998 BECAUSE AMOUNTS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED FOR EPS-PRIMARY AND
EPS-DILUTED DO NOT DIFFER FROM THE AMOUNTS THAT WOULD BE REPORTED UNDER CURRENT
GUIDELINES FOR BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>


</TABLE>