alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 AF Safety Center sponsors Fall Protection Focus weeksPublished May 1, 2015
                        
                        By 14th Flying Training Wing Safety Office
                **COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Ground Safety is sponsoring Fall Protection Focus weeks from May 4-15.
This initiative is a partnership with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's campaign, "National Safety Stand-Down."
During fiscal years 2010-2014, the Air Force had 7,671 injuries from falls resulting in 44,000 lost work days at a cost of more than $30 million; which includes three fatalities. According to OSHA, over the last 10 years, more than 3,500 workers have died from falls which remains the leading cause of death in construction, accounting for more than a third of deaths in the industry.
Throughout the two-week focus, Air Force ground safety professionals will remind all active duty, guard, reserve, civilians and family members of the dangers of preventable falls.
"Fall protection or prevention is not only for activities related to heights that are encountered every day on the job, but also includes, for example, falls that can happen because of wet floors or obstacles on a walkway," said Bill Parsons, the Air Force Ground Safety chief. "We want everyone to remember that preventable falls are inexcusable and that we must continue to do all we can to protect ourselves and each other."AETC 



AFSC 



Air Force Safety Center 



safety 



Columbus AFB Related Links
        Air Force Safety Center
                                Sept. 1, 2000
                                The Air Force Safety Center, a field operating agency headquartered at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, develops, implements, executes and evaluates Department of the Air Force aviation, occupational, weapons, space and system mishap prevention and nuclear surety programs and policy.
#### ABBOTT PAUL OAK, LLC v. JOAQUIN SAMPEDRO, LLC d/b/a Mama Mia Maternity Boutique, Joaquin Sampedro, Alexandra Tate and Kristen Chetta Collura.

No. 2011-C-1239.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Joaquin Sampedro LLC, et al.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2009-13629; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1701.

Denied.
857 A.2d 671

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Darrius L. JEFFRIES, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 11, 2004.

Decided June 2, 2004.

Justin James McShane, for Darrius L. Jeffries, appellant.

Edward Michael Marsico, Jr., Harrisburg, James Patrick Barker, Williamsport, for the Com. of PA, appellee.

Before: CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ..

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.
#### SMITH *v.*CHAPMAN, marshal.

An ordinance imposing a penalty on any one having in possession, custody, or control, within the corporate limits of the City of Cochran, any intoxicating beverage for the purpose of offering it for sale, is void by reason of the existing' State law covering the subject; and a person convicted under that ordinance was entitled to discharge from custody.

No. 6247.

May 19, 1928.

Certiorari. Before Judge Graham. Bleckley superior court. August 27, 1927.

*H. B.*Coates, for plaintiff. *L. A.*Whipple, for defendant.

Beck, P. J.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted before the mayor of the City of Cochran, upon an accusation charging him with the violation of an ordinance of the city; which ordinance is in the following language: “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to have in possession, custody, or control, within the corporate limits of the City of Cochran, any quantity of intoxicating beverage or beverages, for the purpose of offering same for sale.” From the judgment of the mayor finding the plaintiff in *480error guilty an appeal to the council of the city was taken, and upon the hearing the judgment of the mayor was sustained; whereupon the appellant filed his petition to the ordinary of Bleckley County for a writ of habeas corpus; and upon the hearing of that proceeding the ordinary ordered the discharge of the accused. The marshal of the city, respondent in the habeas-corpus proceeding, filed his petition for certiorari to the superior court; and upon the hearing thereof the' certiorari was sustained and a judgment rendered remanding the case to the court of ordinary for another trial. To this ruling the plaintiff in error excepted.

The trial judge erred in sustaining the petition for certiorari. The ordinance for a violation of which the defendant was convicted before the mayor and council is void. o “A municipal ordinance which penalized ‘keeping for sale intoxicating liquors within the limits of the City of Americus/ was rendered void by the provisions of the general law approved November 17, 1915 (Georgia Laws, 1915, Extraordinary Session, p. 77), entitled ‘An act to make clearer and more certain the laws of Georgia heretofore enacted for prohibiting the manufacture of alchoholic, spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquors and beverages, traffic therein, and the keeping on hand thereof in public places or for illegal sale/ etc.” *Barlow*v. *Americus,*146 *Ga.*805 (92 S. E. 643). See also *Lanford*v. *Alfriend,*147 *Ga.*799 (95 S. E. 688), where it was held: “A municipal ordinance punishing an act made penal by a State law in existence or subsequently enacted, covering the same subject-matter, must yield to the State law. *Mayo*v. *Williams,*146 *Ga.*650 (92 S. E. 59); *Snipe*v. *Dixon,*147 *Ga.*285 (93 S. E. 399).” The decisions in these cases render unnecessary any discussion of the question involved.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### UNITED STATES ex rel. DORSCH v. HUNTER, Warden of Leavenworth Penitentiary.

Civ. No. 10187.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 27, 1951.

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding which relates to a federal offense. The crime occurred and sentence was imposed in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The petitioner is serving the sentence imposed in the jurisdiction of Kansas at Leavenworth.

Since the petitioner is not within the jurisdiction of this Court, it is necessary to dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (a); United States ex rel. Smith v. Warden of Philadelphia County Prison, 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 847; Ahrens v. Clark, Attorney General, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898.

An appropriate order will be entered.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6706

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ZHIVARGO KINTA JENKINS, a/k/a Fefe , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 5:19

- cr - 00528

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : December 14, 2023 Decided: December 19, 2023

Before GREGORY and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Zhivargo Kinta Jenkins , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6706 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Zhivargo Kinta Jenkins appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021 )

. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussin g amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jenkins , No. 5:19

- cr - 00528

- FL

- 1 (E.D.N.C. June 29, 2023). We further deny Jenkins’ motions to appoint counsel. 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6706 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### SIMS *v.*SIMS *et al.*

1. Considered in connection witli the evidence and the entire charge to the jury, the court did not err in the instruction of which complaint is made in the motion for new trial.

2. The verdict is supported by evidence.

No. 6482.

May 18, 1928.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Pomeroy. Pulton superior court. January 14, 1928.

*O. G. Hancock,*for plaintiff.

*J ones, JBvins, Moore & Powers,*for defendants.

Gilbert, J.

Mary E. Sims brought suit against Walter A. Sims and T. J. Brooke, alleging that she was the owner of described *463lands which she had conveyed by warranty deed to the first-named defendant to enable him to make a loan on said property, in order that a prior loan might be paid oil; that said defendant afterwards transferred his obligation in the matter to Brooke upon being paid money he had advanced, and made to Brooke a warranty deed to said property, with the exception of a certain described part thereof; that Brooke took his deed with the understanding that it was solely to secure a loan by him and a former loan he assumed; that plaintiff has tendered to Brooke all sums due him, and has demanded, as per agreement, that he execute her a reconveyance, which he has refused to do; and that the deed to defendant Sims and the deed to Brooke are a cloud upon plaintiff’s title, and Brooke is about to sell said property to other persons. The prayers were that the defendants be enjoined from disposing of the property or incumbering it, and that the two said deeds be canceled upon plaintiff’s paying into court the amount due Brooke. The defendants answered, alleging that the conveyances were bona fide warranty deeds, and denying they were made for the purpose of securing a loan. After introduction of evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and added a special ground setting up that the court erred in charging the jury that unless plaintiff had shown by a preponderance of testimony that she had made a tender to Brooke, or that he had waived the same, she would not be entitled to recover, the criticism being that such charge restricted the jury to a question of tender, whereas the question was whether the warranty deeds were only to secure a debt. The motion was overruled, and plaintiff excepted. The case was formerly here on exceptions to a judgment overruling demurrers. *Sims v.*Sims, 163 *Ga.*533 (134 S. E. 308). The headnotes need not be elaborated.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Jacques EDWARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D12-2315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 2012.

Jacques Edward, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, CORTIÑAS and EMAS, JJ.

*1242PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See State v. Adkins,*96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, PETER J. RICE, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MRO Software, Inc.,
a Massachusetts 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 based on such evaluation; and

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

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2005

By: /s/ Peter J. Rice
------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Rice
Executive Vice President, Finance & Administration
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
645 A.2d 134

#### MARIE C. INCOLLINGO, ET AL. AND JOHN M. GAVEN, ET AL. v. JOHN B. CANUSO, ET AL. AND FOX AND LAZO, INC.

June 8, 1994.

ORDER

Leave to appeal is granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ABR
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q 3RD QUARTER 1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                      30,448,880
<SECURITIES>                               128,418,412
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,235,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           168,368,713
<PP&E>                                      23,777,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             217,797,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,262,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       273,745
<OTHER-SE>                                 190,317,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               217,797,814
<SALES>                                     35,292,409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,292,409
<CGS>                                       19,897,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,055,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (5,504,243)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,843,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,111,354
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,732,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,732,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24807]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R9-FHC-2010-N211; 94140-1341-0000-N5]


Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance 
Species (ANS) Task Force. The meeting is open to the public. The 
meeting topics are identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

DATES: The ANS Task Force will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 
November 3 through Thursday, November 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The ANS Task Force meeting will take place at the Holiday 
Inn--Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 
(703-243-9800). You may inspect minutes of the meeting at the office of 
the Chief, Division of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 
22203, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday. You may 
also view the minutes on the ANS Task Force Web site at: http://anstaskforce.gov/meetings.php.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Mangin, Executive Secretary, ANS 
Task Force, by phone at (703) 358-2466, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d7e585e4c4372604c434a44436d4b5a5e034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7b492948689b8aa8689808e89a7819094c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this notice announces meetings 
of the ANS Task Force. The ANS Task Force was established by the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Pub. 
L. 106-580, as amended).
    Topics that the ANS Task Force plans to cover during the meeting 
include: Regional Panel issues and recommendations, updates on ANSTF-
approved species management and control plans, vector management, and 
consideration for approval of State ANS management plans. The agenda 
and other related meeting information are on the ANS Task Force Web 
site at: http://anstaskforce.gov/meetings.php.

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
Bryan Arroyo,
Co-Chair, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Assistant Director--
Fisheries & Habitat Conservation.
[FR Doc. 2010-24807 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
627 A.2d 1132

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN R. WISNIEWSKI.

March 17, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, limited solely to the issue of jail credit for time spent on parole, the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the issue in the light of *State v. Rosado,*131 *N.J.*423, 621 A.2d 12 (1993). Jurisdiction is not retained.
EXHIBIT 23.05

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated February 25, 2005, accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the previously filed Registration
Statements of Spectrum Organic Products, Inc on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-44796
and File No. 333-109342).


/s/  Grant Thornton, LLP
------------------------
     Grant Thornton, LLP

San Francisco, CA
March 24, 2005
News United States Air Force
 Malmstrom tests Minuteman III with launch from VandenbergPublished Sept. 6, 2016
                        
                        By Carla Pampe
                        
                        
                        Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs
                **BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. (AFNS) --**
                A team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test re-entry vehicle Sept. 5 from Vandenberg AFB, California.The ICBM's re-entry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled approximately 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.“I can’t say enough great things about the partners I share this mission set with,” said Col. Craig Ramsey, the 576th Flight Test Squadron commander. “The men and women from the 341st MW task force, the Airmen from my squadron, and our host unit here at Vandenberg (AFB) made this look easy, but it was anything but that. To put all of this together for an on-time launch following an enormous reconfiguration of range assets that took six months to complete ... it’s simply a testament to the dedication and professionalism of these proud organizations. I’m proud to play a small part in it.”Malmstrom AFB is one of three missile bases with crewmembers standing alert 24 hours a day, year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces.The ICBM community, including the Defense Department, the Energy Department and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.Malmstrom AFB 



missile 



ICBM 



Vandenberg AFB 



AFGSC
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Courtney DAVIS.

No. 2010-KO-2373.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Davis, Courtney; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-CR-752; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0073.

Denied.
#### In the SUCCESSION OF Louis Andrew THOMAS, II. Richard S. Thomas v. Louis Andrew Thomas, III.

No. 2011-C-0409.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Thomas, Richard S.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 2007-30066, 2009-10348; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CA 0576, 2010 CA 0577, 2010 CA 1001, 2010 CA 1002.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Jeremiah J. LOVE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1874.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Love, Jeremiah J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 280997; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00723.

Denied.