alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27598]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Northwest 
Training Range Complex

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (Navy), after carefully weighing 
the operational and environmental consequences of the Proposed Action, 
announces its decision to continue to support and conduct current, 
emerging, and future training and research, development, test, and 
evaluation activities in the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) 
to achieve required levels of operational readiness. This decision 
allows the Navy to meet its statutory mission to deploy worldwide naval 
forces equipped and trained to meet existing and emergent threats and 
to enhance its ability to operate jointly with other components of the 
armed forces.
    In its decision, the Navy considered applicable laws, regulations 
and executive orders, including an analysis of the effects of its 
actions outside the United States or its territories under Executive 
Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 
Actions.
    The proposed action will be accomplished as set out in Alternative 
2, described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) as the preferred alternative. 
Implementation of the preferred alternative could begin immediately.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Record of Decision (ROD) has been 
distributed to all those individuals who requested a copy of the Final 
EIS/OEIS and agencies and organizations that received a copy of the 
Final EIS/OEIS. The complete text of the ROD is available for public 
viewing on the project Web site at http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/, 
along with copies of the Final EIS/OEIS and supporting documents. 
Single copies of the ROD will be made available upon request by 
contacting: Kimberly Kler, Naval Facilities Engineering Command 
Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, Washington 98315-
1101; telephone: 360-396-0927.

    Dated: October 26, 2010.
L. R. Almand,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Administrative Law 
Division, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27598 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Red, Also Known as Anthony Paulin, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 385]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 14, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3x/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of entry into premises with intent to commit a crime therein was established by credible evidence warranting the conclusion that defendant ransacked the store in question *(see People v Wilson,*203 AD2d 211 [1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 835 [1994]).

The court adequately instructed the jury on the requirement of entry with intent to commit a crime *(see People v Gaines,*74 NY2d 358, 362 [1989]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
409A of the Code as a “short-term deferral” as described in Section 409A ofthe Code, and the provisions regarding such payment shall be interpreted accordingly.6. **Miscellaneous**. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Executive and theCompany with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral and writtenagreements and understandings between Executive and the Company with respect to the subject matter.This Agreement will be deemed to be made and entered into in the State of New York and will in allrespects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of New York. ThisAgreement may be amended or modified only by a formal written instrument signed by Executive and bya duly authorized representative of the Company. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of andbe binding upon the Company and its successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement may beexecuted in counterparts, both of which taken together shall constitute one instrument.**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, this Agreement has been executed and delivered as of the date first abovewritten.**HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.**         By:  /s/ Marc H. Levin    Marc H. Levin    EVP, Chief Administrative Officer & General Counsel   **EXECUTIVE**   /s/ Todd Myers Todd Myers
# National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

# 

# Airborne Science Program

# Payload Information Form

# 25 March 2009

NASA Airborne Science Program (ASP)

# Payload Information Form (PIF)

# Purpose and General Instructions

1. The purpose of the PIF is to allow instrument Principal Investigators (PIs) a simple and efficient method to provide NASA aircraft engineering (AE) with instrument or sensor information that is sufficient to start the instrument integration process.

2. One PIF form is to be used for each instrument.  Maintenance and updates of the PIF (e.g., as design maturity reduces unknowns or personnel changes) are the responsibility of the PI.

3. The PIF is a standard ASP form and will be accepted by most NASA ASP aircraft organizations. 

4. Guidelines:

Good information flows between the PI and AE is critical at all times in the integration process.  Do not delay responding to queries or requests for additional information.

If exact values are not known, provide estimates and so note.  If no estimate can be given, annotate with TBD.  Indicate N/A or NONE for items that don’t apply to your instrument.

Include additional comments, notes, and references at the end of each section if necessary.

While not specifically requested in the PIF, photographs of instruments, related hardware, or previous aircraft installations is encouraged.

5. Submit the PIF to the appropriate aircraft platform POC.

# NASA Airborne Science Program (ASP)

# Payload Information Form (PIF)

# I. General Information

**1.  Principal Investigator & Team Members (if citizenship is not US, please note if they have a green card):**

**2. Payload Information**

**3. Aircraft Power Requirements**

# II. Hazardous Materials/Equipment

All gases, cryogens, and chemicals are user supplied unless otherwise arranged.  MSDS will be required prior to arrival.

# 1. Lasers

# 2. Radioactive Materials

# 3. Radio Frequency Emitters

# 4. Radio Frequency Susceptibility 

# 5. Pressure Vessels

# 6. Compressed Gases

# 7. Chemicals (solids and liquids)

# 8. Cryogens

# 9. Motors/Pumps

# 10. Heaters

# 11. Chillers

# 12. Batteries & Uninterruptible Power Supplies

# 13. Aircraft Power Distribution, Converters, and Strips

# III. Aircraft Installation Requirements

1. **Aircraft Modifications**

2. **Probes/Inlets**

3. **Exhaust Ports**

4. **Optical Windows and Viewports**

5. **Antennas**

6. **Equipment/Inlet Coverings or Shields**

7. **Operator Station Requirements, if applicable**

8. **Government Furnished Equipment (pods, racks, pallets, etc.)**

9. **Special Equipment**(List any other equipment required)

# IV. Operations

**1. Aircraft Access**

**2. Aircraft Maneuvers**

**3. Ground Work Space Requirements**

Assume all gases, cryogens, and chemicals are user supplied unless otherwise arranged.  MSDS will be required.

# V. PI Revision Control

# VI. Comments

NASA ASP, Rev 1, 3-25-091
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL JEROME HOLT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-849 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed July 12, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; William Sites, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 15, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN HENRY BROWNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4038

(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-00734-TS-1)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, John Henry Browne pled guilty to possession

of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the

mandatory minimum sentence. Although his plea agreement included a waiver of

his right to appeal his sentence, Mr. Browne has filed an appeal seeking to

Appellate Case: 10-4038 Document: 01018403246 Date Filed: 04/15/2010 Page: 1
1 We remind the government of its responsibility to attach a copy of the plea

agreement to the motion to enforce. See 10th Cir. R. 27.2(A)(2)(b). 

-2-

challenge his sentence. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver

in the plea agreement pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.

2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

In determining whether an appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal

waiver, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily

waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in

a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. Mr. Browne concedes that the appeal is

within the scope of the appeal waiver, he knowingly and voluntarily entered his

plea, and nothing in the record discloses a reasonable basis for determining that

enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Accordingly, Mr. Browne has not established any of the applicable

exceptions to the enforcement of the appeal waiver. We therefore GRANT the

government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in the plea

agreement and DISMISS the appeal.1

 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 10-4038 Document: 01018403246 Date Filed: 04/15/2010 Page: 2
#### S. E. Belcher *v.*D. A. Givens.

Headings — Petition — Demurrer —¡Personal Property — Possession — Evidence — Ownership — Bill of Lading — Consignor.

Construing the bill of sale with strictness, it shows that appellant had possession of the tobacco, and had at least a qualified interest therein, and that he delivered it to the defendant, who appropriated the proceeds to his own use. But possession of personal property is *prima facie*evidence of ownership; appellant being-possessed of it according to his petition, which, upon demurrer, is taken as true, the law implies a promise to account for it to his consignee.

APPEAL PROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 10, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters :

A demurrer having been sustained to tEe petition, and appellant having failed further to plead his petition was dismissed, and he has brought the case to this court.

It is alleged in substance by appellant that in February, 1864, he shipped on board the steamer Masonic Gem by R. D. Hughes in .-good condition twenty-three hogsheads of tobacco to Watts, Givens & Co., at Paducah, Ky., from Highland, Marshall Co., they paying freight and $18.25 charges from the place of shipment. That a bill of lading was executed by said boat and owners for said tobacco which he files. All of said tobacco was delivered to defendant, D. A. Givens, and shipped by him to Louisville and there sold, for the sum of $2,085.56 net proceeds, all of which said Givens leceived, and fails and refuses to pay to plaintiff although demanded. He further alleges that he paid out and expended for *94said tobacco the sum of $1,992.25 on the 1st of July, 1863, and asks judgment for the $2,085.56, the amount for which he alleges Givens sold the tobacco, and for interest and costs.

*Bigger &*Moss, *for appellee.*

Construing the petition with the utmost strictness it shows that the appellant had the possession of the tobacco, and had at least a qualified property therein, and that he by his agents delivered it to defendant, who disposed of it and appropriated the proceeds to his own use. But possession of personal property is *prima, facie*evidence of ownership, and as appellant being possessed of the-tobacco consigned it to appellee who sold and disposed of it according to the allegations of the petition which upon demurrer must betaken as true the law implies a promise to account for it to his-consignor.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 3, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1332

Lower Tribunal No. F15-8755 

________________

Sir Michael A. Maps,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina 

Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

Sir Michael A. Maps, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FRESH
CHOICE, INC.'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 21, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-21-1999
<CASH>                                           2,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      127
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,275
<PP&E>                                          44,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,244)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,996
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,221
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,862)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,795
<SALES>                                         16,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,791
<CGS>                                            4,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (70)
<NET-INCOME>                                     (423)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 34 24

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro na ld K. Jo rd an
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Bri an D. Hall , Cor rect io na l Offi cer, PC C, In di vi du al ly; Jo ey Arcan d, Ca se wor ke r, PCC, In di vi du al ly

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es
P a u l J o hn s o n , C a s e w o r

k e r , P C C , I n d i v i d

u a l l y ; C l i f f o r d O w e n s , F U M , P C C , I n d i v i d u a l l y
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ne 1, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Ju ne 6, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Mi ss ou ri in m at e Ro na ld K. Jo rd an ap pe al s fo ll owi ng fin al jud gm en t in hi s 42

U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Mr. Jo rd an ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t’s gra nt of su m m ary 1 jud gm en t to de fen da nt Jo ey Arcan d; th e ve rd ic t in fav or of de fen da nt Bri an D. Hall aft er a be nc h tri al ; an d se ve ral pr e-t ria l an d po st -tr ia l or de rs

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th ere were no jury is su es on Mr. Jo rd an ’s du e pr oc es s cl ai m ag ai ns t Mr. Arcan d. See Mas on v. Co rr. Med . S erv s., In c., 55 9 F.3 d 8 8 0 , 8 8 4

- 8 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (rev ie win g de novo gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of no n- m ov in g pa rty). Fu rth er, we fin d no cl ear
erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Mr. Jo rd an di d no t sh ow th at Mr

. Hall --i n
co nd uc ti ng se arch es of

, an d co nf is cat in g it em s fro m , Mr. Jo rd an ’s pe rs on or cel l-- was act in g i n re ta li at io n fo r Mr. J or da n’s en ga ge m en t i n pr ot ect ed act iv it y . See Kap la n v. May o Cli ni c, 84 7 F.3d 98 8, 99 1 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (fo ll owi ng be nc h t ria l, thi s cou rt

rev ie ws de no vo le ga l co nc lu si on s, an d fo r cl ear erro r fact ua l fin di ng s) ; W rig ht v. St

. Vin ce nt Heal th Sy s., 73 0 F.3 d 73 2, 73 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (d is tri ct co ur t’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s in be nc h tri al , li ke jury’ s cred ib il it y fin di ng s in jury tri al , are vi rtu al ly

un as sa il ab le on ap pe al ); Nels on v. Sh uf fm an , 60 3 F .3d 43 9, 4 49 -5 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (el em en ts of ret al ia ti on cl ai m ). Fi na ll y , a s to Mr. Jo rd an ’s r em ai ni ng ch al le ng es to di st ric t co ur t or de rs , th ey pr ov id e no ba si s fo r rev ers al

. The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t

co ur t i s af

fir m ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Je an C. Ham il to n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-
SARAH LOUCKS 804 Pecan Street

DISTRICT CLERK PO Box 770

PHONE (512) 332-7244 Bastrop, TX 78602

FAX (512) 332-7249

Bastrop County District Clerk

August 20, 2015

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12547

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547

Re: Court of Appeals No. 03-15-00391-CV; Trial Court No. 15-17165

Style: VRM v. Edward Heard, et al.

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have spoken with the Appellant’s attorney for the above styled cause of action. He has 

expressed to me that he has lost contact with his client for the time being, therefore would be 

unable to pay our fee for the Clerk’s Record. 

I would like to request a 30 day extension for filing my record. This would give the 

Appellant time to contact us with payment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact me.

Best,

/s/ Katy Nyc

Katy Nyc

Deputy Clerk

Bastrop County District Clerk’s Office

804 Pecan Street/Po Box 770

Bastrop, TX 78602

(512) 581-4027

Katy.nyc@co.bastrop.tx.us
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000046 07-JAN-2019 08:21 AM
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel J. Kohl, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(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 results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: February 9, 2007
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JACOB ZLOTKIN.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.