alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DART CHEROKEE BASIN 

OPERATING, CO., LLC; CHEROKEE 

BASIN PIPELINE, LLC, 

 Petitioners,

v.

BRANDON W. OWENS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Respondent.

No. 13-603

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, O'BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on the Petition for Permission to Appeal from the 

United States District Court for the District of Kansas 5:12-CV-04157-JAR-JPO – The 

Honorable Judge A. Robinson (the “Petition”). The Petition was filed by Defendants 

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC. 

Plaintiff Brandon W. Owens filed a response opposing the Petition.

Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, as well as the applicable 

law, the Petition is denied.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 20, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-603 Document: 01019076399 Date Filed: 06/20/2013 Page: 1 
2

Judge O’Brien would have granted the Petition.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 13-603 Document: 01019076399 Date Filed: 06/20/2013 Page: 2
#### Richardson and Wife *v.*Hopkins.

*Thursday, May*30.

A declaration in slander alleged the words to have been spoken in a discourse with *A. B.,*in the presence and hearing of others. *Held,*that it was not necessary to prove that the words were addressed to *A. B.*

ERROR to the *Noble*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— Slander by *Richardson*and wife against *Hopkins*for words spoken of the wife. There are several counts in the declaration. Each count alleges the slander to have been uttered in a certain discourse had by the defendant with a particular person by name, and in the presence and hearing of divers other persons. Pleas, the general issue and the statute of limitations. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

On the trial, the Court restricted the plaintiffs to proof of words addressed by the defendant to the persons, or some of them, with whom he was alleged to have held the discourse.

We. do not consider the question here presented a very plain one. It was certainly unnecessary, and, as far as we know, unprecedented, to allege in the declaration that the *colloquium*was had with a particular person by name. The pleader may, however, increase the burden of his proof by unnecessary averments; and we should be inclined to hold the plaintiffs to strict proof of the *colloquium*in each count, as they have seen fit to describe it, were there not authority, which we conceive to be analogous, against it. The law is well settled, that, where words are laid to have been spoken *117in the presence of an individual named, and of others, the action may be maintained by proof of words uttered when that individual was not present. Bull. N. P. 6. — Stark. Ev. iv. 844. — Roscoe’s Ev. 4th ed. 372. Our opinion therefore is, that the plaintiffs should have been permitted to prove the words laid in the declaration, though they were not addressed to any of the persons therein designated.

*T. Johnson*and *D.*Wallace, for the plaintiffs.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
FAB LAB EL PASO

Fab Lab El Paso 2021 TEAMII-CAAT

Cathy Chen 

2/01/22 - 1/31/24

The year-long PASOFinders Program consists of six 

free workshops designed for grades 3-8. The 

workshops teach technical skills in space science and 

are scheduled to celebrate NASA missions, milestones, 

astronomical events, and diversity and inclusion 

commemorations. Student experiences include: 

interacting with Johnson Space Center’s 360 tours via 

mobile app and cardboard headsets, then creating their 

own VR outer space; being introduced to ways to 

participate in NASA citizen science using Arduinos, 

sensors, and smartphones to collect data; exploring 

contributions by Hispanics in aerospace with local 

experts and indigenous achievements in astronomy 

through Chaco Canyon artifacts; and using NASA 

resources and 3D printing teaching models to explore 

lunar eclipses.

List of Partners:

• Socorro Independent School District

• Ysleta Independent School District

• Clint Independent School District

• University of Texas at El Paso Aerospace

Center

City of El Paso Museums and Cultural Affairs

Dept.

•

Isabela shows off her terrarium, after learning 

about terraforming extraterrestrial environments

Credits: Fab Lab El Paso

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC22K0451, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS O’BRIEN EDWARDS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; JACK

HUPP, labor relations director; LARRY

WALLS, labor relations representative;

LAWRENCE TATE; DALE MOORE;

PATRICK F. KELLY, Chief Judge,

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 10-3009

(D.C. No. 6:09-CV-01347-JTM-KMH)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

3.3(B) and 10th Cir. R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3009 Document: 01018447661 Date Filed: 06/25/2010 Page: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,092,668
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,165,699
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               100,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               944,062
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 33,100,005
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      22,105,849
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        22,056,223
<LOANS>                                    122,442,164
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,186,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             192,220,721
<DEPOSITS>                                 153,659,333
<SHORT-TERM>                                 7,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,575,763
<LONG-TERM>                                 10,614,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,832,860
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,038,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             192,220,721
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,513,849
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,326,618
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               236,963
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            10,077,430
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,434,428
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,012,498
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,064,932
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  229,843
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,827
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,699,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,270,245
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,270,245
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   803,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.28
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,704,622
<LOANS-PAST>                                   285,163
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               972,859
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   16,377
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,186,325
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,010,236
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        176,089
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TYRONE MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:05-cr-00470-TLW)

Submitted: November 26, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Arthur Bradley

Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Miller pled guilty to conspiracy to possess more

than fifty grams of cocaine base (crack) and more than 500 grams of

cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was

sentenced to a term of 170 months imprisonment. Miller’s attorney

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the adequacy of the guilty plea under Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11, but stating that, in his view, there are no

meritorious issues for appeal. Miller has been informed of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a

brief. We affirm. 

Although counsel questions whether the district court

fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Miller’s plea, after a

thorough review of the record, we conclude that the court followed

all the requirements of Rule 11 to ensure that Miller’s guilty plea

was knowing and voluntary.

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record

and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If the client

requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
- 3 -

must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

FLEMING BUILDING COMPANY, INC., 

an Oklahoma corporation, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

M2 ENGINEERING, AB, a Swedish 

Privately Held Company,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN AB, a 

Swedish Banking corporation; 

EXPORTKREDITNAMNDEN, the 

Swedish Exports Guarantee Board,

 Defendants.

No. 10-5150

(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00790-GKF-PJC)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Appellant’s Response to Appellee Status Report. 

In the appellee’s Sixteenth Status Report, which was filed January 7, 2015, the appellee 

stated that its Swedish bankruptcy proceedings had concluded and as a result of those 

proceedings M2 Engineering AB no longer existed as an operating business entity. The 

appellee suggested that the appeal should be dismissed. We directed the appellant to 

respond to the appellee’s suggestion.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 23, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-5150 Document: 01019375140 Date Filed: 01/23/2015 Page: 1 
2

In its response, the appellant stated that it “consents to the withdrawal of this 

Appeal based upon the status of M2 as described in the Status Report.” 

Accordingly, the court will treat the parties’ latest filings as a stipulation to 

dismiss this appeal. As construed, the stipulation of the parties to dismiss the captioned 

appeal is granted. Each party shall bear its own costs.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-5150 Document: 01019375140 Date Filed: 01/23/2015 Page: 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERARD ONEIL WELLS, a/k/a J,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2; 0:19-cv01950-JFA)

Submitted: May 6, 2021 Decided: July 7, 2021

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard Oneil Wells, Appellant Pro Se. John C. Potterfield, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerard Oneil Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could find the district 

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 

S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wells has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Rudijanto Azali, President and Chief Executive
Officer of WorldStar Energy, Corp., and Michael Kinley, Chief Financial Officer
of WorldStar Energy, Corp., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WorldStar Energy Corp. for the year ended
March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of WorldStar Energy Corp.

Date: September 15, 2011

|By: | /s/ Rudijanto Azali                         | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Rudijanto Azali                             | 
|    | President and Chief Executive
      Officer | 
|    |                                             | 
|    |                                             | 
|By: | /s/ Michael Kinley                          | 
|    | Michael Kinley                              | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer                     | 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2031

To authorize the States to implement such mechanisms as are necessary 

in a time of national crisis to ensure the continuity of the Senate 

in the event that a quorum of the Senate is not present due to the 

inability of the members of the Senate to discharge the powers and 

duties of their office. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2004

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. DODD, and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 

Administration 

A BILL

To authorize the States to implement such mechanisms as 

are necessary in a time of national crisis to ensure the 

continuity of the Senate in the event that a quorum 

of the Senate is not present due to the inability of 

the members of the Senate to discharge the powers and 

duties of their office.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Continuity of the Sen5 ate Act of 2004’’. 
2

•S 2031 IS 

1 SEC. 2. INCAPACITIES IN THE SENATE FOLLOWING A CATA2 STROPHIC INCIDENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the event that the Senate as4 certains that a quorum of the Senate is not present, the 

5 Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate, or 

6 their designees, may jointly determine that such absence 

7 of a quorum is caused by the inability of the members 

8 of the Senate to discharge the powers and duties of the 

9 office during a time of national crisis. 

10 (b) STATE LAWS.—The legislature of each State may 

11 enact such laws as the State determines necessary declar12 ing who shall serve in the place of members that are deter13 mined to be unable to discharge the powers and duties 

14 of the office under subsection (a). 

15 SEC. 3. LIMITATION. 

16 Nothing in this Act shall limit the authority of any 

17 State under the Constitution of the United States to fill 

18 a vacancy in the Senate.

Æ
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

DC-8

• Scientists fly on this plane conducting all sorts of experiments.

• NASA usually flies this plane out of its facility in California.

• This plane has helped scientists conduct experiments all over the world.

Want to learn more about this DC-8? Go to: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-050-DFRC.html
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Michael Silton, Chief Executive Officer of Rainmaker Systems, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



/S/    MICHAEL
SILTONMichael SiltonPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: February 26, 2007
#### T. P. Jacobs et al. *v.*Mrs. Susan Clay.

Husband and Wife — Property Conveyed to Husband in Trust for Wife — Improvement by Husband — Donation.

The improvement of trust property conveyed by the wife’s father to her husband, for her use, must he regarded as a donation, in a contest between her and her husband’s heirs.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

April 20, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

The improvement of the trust property conveyed by Mrs. Clay’s father to her husband, J. B. Clay, for her use must be regarded as a donation on his part to her, at least in a contest between her and his heirs merely, and we are the more willing to place this construction upon his action as Mrs. Olay afterward by conveyance donated to him a property of much more value.

When James B. Clay sold this trust property near St. Louis he held its proceeds in trust for his wife, the appellee, and he could not reduce his liability on the trust fund by the specification of any particular amount in the deed of trust to Thomas P. Jacob, dated September 20, 1861, which he executed; but the property dedicated to pay this debt due his wife should be held liable for its entire amount and a sufficiency sold to reimburse her. Wherefore, perceiving no error in the judgment, it is affirmed.
A-MAZE-ING WOMEN OF STEM: MATHEMATICS

Jeanette Scissum was a mathematician. In 1967, she wrote a 

report about how to use mathematics to better predict 

sunspot cycles.

Did you know... some of NASA’s first and best computers were women? 

These math whizzes solved hundreds of thousands of mathematics 

problems to make space travel possible.

Want to learn about women doing amazing things in mathematics? 

Visit https://www.nasa.gov/women-at-nasa/.
| 1.     |      | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2011; and                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| 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. |

| Date: March 17, 2011 | By:                                        | /s/ William D. Johnson |   |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                 | William D. Johnson                              |
|                 | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

----