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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY HICKMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-3)

Submitted: March 10, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Hickman appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to correct the presentence report.∗

AFFIRMED

 We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Hickman, No. 5:93-cr-00144-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 

2009). 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.

 ∗ We previously remanded this case for the district court to 

determine whether Hickman demonstrated excusable neglect or good 

cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. Without 

giving Hickman an opportunity to respond, the district court 

found no excusable neglect. Because the time limits of Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b) are not jurisdictional, United States v. Urutyan, 

564 F.3d 679, 683-86 (4th Cir. 2009), and the government has not 

moved to dismiss the appeal, we decline to dismiss the appeal as 

untimely and instead address the merits of the appeal.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50686

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS LORENZO MONTOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1827-ALL

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Lorenzo Montoya appeals his conviction for importation

of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to

distribute. Montoya argues that the evidence fails to show that

he knew that a large quantity of marijuana was hidden in his van. 

He contends that the evidence shows only he acted negligently in

agreeing to drive the van across the border, and not that he

knowingly possessed or imported marijuana. He also contends that
No. 03-50686

-2-

the trial court erred by instructing the jury on deliberate

ignorance. 

The trial evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury

to find that Montoya knew that there was marijuana hidden under

the floor of the van. United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes, 722

F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Cano-Guel, 167

F.3d 900, 905 (5th Cir. 1999). Under the facts of the case, we

find no error in the trial court’s decision to give a deliberate

ignorance instruction. United States v. Saucedo-Munoz, 307 F.3d

344, 348-49 (5th Cir. 2002). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 126 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 126

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Financial 
            Services in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2017

   Mr. Hensarling (for himself and Ms. Maxine Waters of California) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Financial 
            Services in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Financial Services (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $16,580,450 for the One Hundred 
Fifteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $8,290,225 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2017, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2018; and
            (2) not more than $8,290,225 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2018, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2019.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
**8EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**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 this Annual Report of Caspian Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kerry Doyle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: December 24, 2009 | /s/ Kerry Doyle |
|-------------------------|-----------------|

|   | Kerry Doyle, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
#### Dodd *v.*Noble.

*Wednesday, November*21.

Covenant on a lease for rent. Plea, that the plaintiff assigned the lease to a third person before the rent became due and before the suit was commenced. Replication, that before the commencement of the suit, the assignee delivered back the lease to the plaintiff, and cancelled the indorsement. Rejoinder, that the assignee did not cancel the indorsement, concluding to the country. *Held,*that the rejoinder tendered an immaterial issue.

The above issue having been joined and found for the defendant, it was *held*that a reploader should be awarded.

ERROR to the *Cass*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J,

This was an action of covenant for rent due on a lease. The defendant pleaded, *inter*alia, that before any part of the money became due, and before the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff assigned the indenture to a third person. The plaintiff replied that the assignee, before the suit was commenced, delivered the indenture back to the plaintiff, and cancelled the indorsement. The defendant, by way of rejoinder, averred that the assignee did not cancel the indorsement; and'concluded to the country. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

This judgment is erroneous. The verdict was rendered upon an immaterial issue tendered by the defendant. The substantial part of the replication is, that the indenture had been delivered back to the plaintiff by the assignee; and it was for the defendant either to deny that fact or to confess and avoid it. But the rejoinder does neither. It merely denies the cancelling of the indorsement by the assignee, and concludes to the country. That was tendering an immaterial issue. It was not essential to the plaintiff’s right to recover, that the assignee had cancelled the assignment. If the plaintiff had become lawfully possessed of the indenture as his own, by a delivery of it back to him by the assignee, that was sufficient for him; and it was of no consequence to the merits of the cause whether the indorsement had been cancelled by the assignee, or whether it had been formally cancelled at all. *Dugan*v. *The United*States, 3 Wheat. 172(1).

The verdict therefore in favour of the defendant, upon the issue tendered by the rejoinder in question, does not show that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover; and the .Court, *31instead of rendering a final judgment on the verdict, should have awarded a repleader.

*I.*Naylor, for the plaintiff.

*H.*Cooper, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the verdict set aside, &c. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 The payee’s possession of a note, notwithstanding an indorsement on it in full, is *prima facie*evidence that the note is his. *Harris et al.*v. *Smith,*Vol. 4 of these Rep. 550, and note.—*Williams et al.*v. *Dyer et al., May*term, 1839, *post.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CASEY LYNN LESLIE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 42 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 4.35 


 


 





 


COCA-COLA PLAZA


ATLANTA, GEORGIA








 


	ADDRESS REPLY TO
	P.O. BOX 1734
	ATLANTA,
	GA 30301 404-676-2121








 


November 7, 2019


 


Embotelladora Andina S.A


Miraflores 9153,


Renca, Santigo


Chile


 


Re: Territory


 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the Bottler’s
Agreement effective January 1, 2018, by and between THE COCA-COLA COMPANY (hereinafter the “Company”) and EMBOTELLADORA
ANDINA S.A (hereinafter the “Bottler”), authorizing the Bottler to prepare and package the Beverage COCA-COLA and any
ancillary authorizations for other Company Beverages for sale and distribution under the Trade Marks (hereinafter the “Bottler’s
Agreement”). The terms used herein have the same meaning assigned to them as in the Bottler’s Agreement unless otherwise
specifically stated.


 


Effective as of November 1, 2019, the parties
hereby mutually agree to modify the Territory description in Clause 1 the Bottler’s Agreement as set forth below:


 


En la República de Chile:


Región Metropolitana


Provincia de San Antonio, en la V Región


Provincia de Cachapoal, en la VI Región


República de Chile, II Región
de Antofagasta, III Región de


Atacama, IV Región de Coquimbo,XI
Región de Aysén del


General Carlos Ibáñez del
Campo, XII Región de Magallanes y


la Antártica Chilena


 


Except as modified by this amendment, all
other terms and conditions of the Bottler’s Agreement will remain in full force and effect. Upon execution by all parties,
this Amendment will become part of the Bottler’s Agreement and all references to the Bottler’s Agreement shall be deemed
to include this amendment.


 





	THE
    COCA-COLA COMPANY	 	EMBOTELLADORA
    ANDINA S.A
	 	 	 
	 By: 	 	 	By:	 
	 	Authorized Representative	 	 	Authorized Representative
	Date:  	 	 	Date:	 







 


Classified - Confidential


 


Classified - Confidential
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0938. JPMORGAN CHASE, BANK, N.A. v. MICHAEL A. CRONAN.

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Remand to Trial Court in the

above-styled case, it is hereby ordered that the motion is GRANTED.The case shall

be remanded to the trial court until such time as the entire record is prepared. As

explained in the joint motion, the “entire record” includes the records from the 2014

consolidated case as well as the hearing transcripts specifically designated in the

notice of appeal filed in this case. Once the entire record is prepared, appellant shall

have thirty (30) days to re-institute the appeal by filing a new notice of appeal in the

trial court. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 07, 2019

02/07/2019
#### David A. ATKINS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, RespondentAppellee.

No. 03-7163.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 20, 2003.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of David A. Atkins unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal.*

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) The motion is granted.

> (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

*

 Atkins asks the court to provide him with an official complaint form to file a complaint against a Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims judge. Any such request should be directed to that court.
#### The State *v.*Watson.

Tuesday, *June*4.

Ii is not necessary in an indictment for selling spirituous liquors without license, to state that the defendant had not a *permit*from the clerk of the board of county commissioners to sell, &e.

ERROR to the *Parke*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

Indictment for vending spirituous liquors by retail without license.

■ The indictment charges that the defendant, at, &c., did unlawfully barter and sell a quantity of spirituous liquor by a less .quantity than a quart at a time, to wit, one half pint of whiskey, to one *J. L.*for the sum of six and a fourth cents, he the said defendant then and there not being licensed according to law to vend spirituous liquors by retail.

The indictment is founded on the 56th section of the act relative to crime and punishment. Rev. Code of 1831. That act provides, that every person not being licensed according to law to vend spirituous liquors by retail, who may barter or sell any spirituous liquor, &c. by a less quantity than a quart at a time, shall be fined, &c.

The defendant moved to quash the indictment, because it did not also contain a distinct averment, that the defendant had not a *permit*from the clerk of the board of county commissioners to vend spirituous liquors: The Court sustained the motion and quashed the indictment.

The act of 1832 “to license and regulate ■ taverns and groceries,” prescribes the requisites which shall entitle a person to the privilege of selling spirituous liquors. That privilege is obtained either by application to the board of county commissioners while in session, or to the clerk in vacation. If the privilege be granted by the board, it is called a *license ;*if by the clerk, a permit is given to retail until the next meeting of the board. But in, either case, any person who obtains permission to sell has a license to do so according to law. *156In the present case, if the defendant had a permit from the cleric, it would have been a sufficient justification for him on ffie plea of not guilty, for a *permit*and a license are substanthe same thing.

*W. Quarles*and *J. A. Wright,*for the state.

*T.*A. *Howard*and *W. P. Rryant,*for the defendant.

The indictment in the present case, in describing the of-fence, follows the language of the statute. Where an indictment is brought upon a statute which has general prohibitory words in it, it is sufficient to- charge the offence generally in the words of the statute. *Rex*v. Pemberton, 2 Burr. 1035.—*State*v. Bougher, 3 Blackf. 307.—*State*v. *M’Roberts,*4 Blackf. 178.

The Court erred in quashing the indictment, and the judgment must be reversed.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
# Astronaut Glove Challenge (2009)

Astronaut Glove Challenge (2009) – An advanced astronaut glove prototype is tested in a vacuum chamber at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Its wearer, Peter Homer, won the challenge in both 2007 and 2009, amassing a cumulative prize of $450,000.  

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/459554main-jsc2010e068782-done-full/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Centennial Challenges
Image CreditNASASize1600x1200pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jun 20, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Beth Ridgeway								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
# Christopher Baker

Program Executive

## 						Follow NASA Technology					

          -   
          -   

Christopher Baker currently serves as the program executive for the Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology programs within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. These programs seek to increase the pace of space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce though the rapid identification, development, and testing of capabilities that exploit agile spacecraft platforms and responsive launch capabilities from industry providers. Baker previously held various positions in atmospheric and suborbital flight testing at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center and managed an agency wide early-stage research and development program from NASA Headquarters. Baker is a graduate of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute where he received a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

## STMD Leadership

				See All                			

Evelyn Vidal-Roles
Office Manager

Catrina Horton
Executive Officer

Dr. Kurt Vogel
Associate Administrator

Prasun Desai
Deputy Associate Administrator

Walter Engelund
Deputy Associate Administrator for Programs

G. Michael Green
Deputy Associate Administrator for Management/Chief of Staff

Derek Wang
Director of Communications

Voleak Roeum
Director of Resources Management

Alesyn Lowry
Director for Strategic Planning and Integration

Michelle Munk
Acting Chief Architect

Jeffrey Sheehy
Chief Engineer

Jenn Gustetic
Director of Early Stage Innovations and Partnerships

Niki Werkheiser
Director of Technology Maturation

Trudy Kortes
Director of Technology Demonstrations

Christopher Baker
Program Executive
EXHIBIT
32.1




Section 1350 Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








In
connection with the quarterly report of Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas
P. Baker, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the report.








Date:July 30,
      2010
            /s/
      Douglas P.
      Baker
              Douglas
      P. Baker
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
- Home
- About S3VI
- Community and Opportunities   - Opportunities
  - Community of Practice Webinars
  - SmallSat LEARN Forum
  - Working Groups / Initiatives
  - NASA Engineering Network
  - Upcoming Conferences and Events
- Tools   - SSRI Knowledge Base
  - State-of-the-Art Report
  - Mission Design Tools
  - Small Spacecraft Information Search
- Resources
- New to SmallSats?   - Definitions & Standards
  - CubeSat 101
  - CubeSat 201
  - Guidebooks
  - Opportunities
  - Webinars
- SST

# Working Groups and Initiatives

                                Learn More about Working Groups and Initiatives

### The S3VI supports and coordinates working groups on small spacecraft topics of interest.  Descriptions and summaries of two current working groups are available below.

#### Small Satellite Reliability Initiative

#### Space-based SmallSat Networks

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Space Technology Mission Directorate
Space Technology Mission Directorate. Technology drives exploration and the space economy.

STMD Small Spacecraft Technology

STMD Flight Opportunities

Small Satellite Missions
Order filed April 14, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00221-CV

____________

BANDALI DAHDAH, Appellant

V.

NADIM ZABNEH, BASIMA ZABANEH, MICHAEL BALLASES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-62064

ORDER

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this case purporting to appeal the trial 

court’s order to pay costs in trial court cause number 2015-62064. Our records do 

not reflect a final appealable judgment in cause number 2015-62064. 

The clerk’s record has not been filed in this appeal. To determine our 

jurisdiction over this appeal, and if jurisdiction exists, whether appellant is entitled 
to proceed without the advance payment of costs, we issue the following order for a 

partial clerk’s record.

We order the Harris County District Clerk to file a partial clerk’s record with 

the clerk of this court on or before May 16, 2016. In order that this court may 

ascertain its jurisdiction over the appeal, the partial clerk’s record shall contain (1)

the judgment being appealed; (2) any motion for new trial, other post-judgment 

motion, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) the notice of 

appeal. In addition, the partial clerk’s record shall contain: (4) appellant’s affidavit 

of indigence; (5) the contest(s) to the affidavit of indigence, if any; (6) the trial 

court’s order ruling on any contest; (7) any other documents pertaining to the claim 

of indigence and the contests thereto. 

PER CURIAM