alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-40","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nXjvO6DTHu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-40\/\">STS-40<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-40\/embed\/#?secret=nXjvO6DTHu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-40” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nXjvO6DTHu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/9125729\/9125729~large.jpg?w=600&h=1493&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1493}
Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 1 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 2 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 3 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 4 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 5 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 6 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 7 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 8 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 9 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 10 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 11 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 12 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 13 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 14 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 15 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 16 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 17 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 18 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 19 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 20 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 21 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 22 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 23 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 24 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 25 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 26 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 27 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 28 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 29 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 30 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 31 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 32 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 33 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 34 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 35 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 36 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 37 of 38

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT   Document 1-1   Filed 09/01/15   Page 38 of 38
<PAGE> 1

<TABLE>
                                    Advanced Communications Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                                    ----------------------------------------------------

                                             COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                                        (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                    Nine months Ended
                                                     ----------------------       ------------------------------------
(In thousands, except per share amounts)              Actual      Pro Forma              Pro Forma            Actual
                                                     ---------    ---------       -----------------------    ---------
                                                     Sept. 30,    Sept. 30,       Sept. 30,     Sept. 30,    Sept. 30,
                                                       1998         1997            1998          1997          1998
                                                     ---------    ---------       ---------     ---------    ---------
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>          <C>
Earnings Per Share:
------------------

Average number of common shares
   outstanding for basic and diluted
   computation (See Note)                             19,616        19,616         19,616         19,616       18,179
                                                     =======       =======        =======        =======      =======

Net income (loss) earnings                           $(3,691)      $(2,146)       $(4,937)       $(2,370)     $(5,835)
                                                     =======       =======        =======        =======      =======

Basic earnings per share                             $  (.19)      $  (.11)       $  (.25)       $  (.12)       $(.32)
                                                     =======       =======        =======        =======      =======

Diluted earnings per share                           $  (.19)      $  (.11)       $  (.25)       $  (.12)       $(.32)
                                                     =======       =======        =======        =======      =======
</TABLE>






  Note:  The effect of the assumed exercise of stock options and the assumed
  conversion of the note payable and preferred stock have not been included
  in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the period after
  issuance because to do so would have been anti-dilutive for the periods
  presented.
#### Young *v.*Tustin, an Infant.

The jury, in. trespass to personal property, cannot increase the amount of their verdict for the plaintiff, by an allowance of counsel fees.

The plaintiff in such suit cannot recover damages which are not implied by law from the wrong committed, unless they are specially stated in the declaration.

Monday, April 10, 1837.

APPEAL from the *Shelby*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

*J. Tustin,*an infant, by *A. Tustin*his next friend, sued *Young*in an action of trespass. The ground of action is the killing of the plaintiff’s horse by fastening a heavy piece of wood to his neck. Damage 150 dollars. Two pleas. 1st, the general issue; 2dly, that the horse was trespassing on the defendant’s enclosure, wherefore he put a yoke on him, &c. The second plea was demurred to, and the demurrer correctly sustained. The cause was tried on the general issue, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for 45 dollars.

The Court refused to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover counsel fees, but instructed -them that they might give the plaintiff, by way of damages, his reasonable expenses in the prosecution of the suit. The Court committed an error in refusing the instructions asked for, and in giving those which were given. The jury cannot increase the amount of their verdict for the plaintiff by the allowance of counsel fees. The only fee of that character which a successful plaintiff can be entitled to, is that which the statute denominates an attorney’s fee; and that is only recovered by its being included in the judgment for costs.

There is another objection which not only applies to the instructions refused, but also to those which were given. This is not a cause in which any damages, not naturally and neces*278sarily arising from the killing of the horse, could be recovered; because the declaration contains no averment that any such damages had been sustained. This objection to the recovery of the counsel fees and expenses in question, were there no other objection to their recovery, would be fatal. In actions of trespass, the plaintiff cannot recover damages which are not implied by law from the wrong committed, unless they are specially *stated in the declaration. 1 Chitt.*Pl. 441.

*J. Ryman,*for the appellant.

*P. Sweetser*and *S. Major,*for the appellee.

In the case under consideration, the instructions refused should have been given, and those given should have been refused.'

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed and the verdict set aside at the costs of the *prochein amy.*Cause remanded, &c,
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. District Judge: Raner C. Collins Date: February 1, 2018 

USA v. Lonnie Ray Swartz Case Number: CR-15-01723-001-TUC-RCC (DTF)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Wallace Kleindienst and Mary Sue Feldmeier 

Attorney for Defendant: Sean Chapman and Jaime Calle, Retained 

Deputy Clerk: Sherry Gammon 

Court Reporter: Erica McQuillen 

Interpreter: Sandy Frady (for victim’s family) 

Defendant: ☐ Present ☒ Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons 

MOTION HEARING: 

Matter comes before the Court to address all outstanding motions. 

The Motion for Disclosure (Doc. 263) filed by the Defendant is argued by Mr. Calle and Ms. 

Feldmeier. The Court takes the motion UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

The Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Defendant’s Army Service and Personnel Records 

(Doc. 272) filed by the Defendant is argued by Mr. Chapman and Mr. Kleindienst. The Court takes the 

motion UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

The Motion to Preclude Cumulative Expert Testimony (Doc. 273) filed by the Defendant is MOOT, as 

the parties have agreed to a resolution. 

The Motion in Limine Concerning Civil Litigation (Doc. 277) filed by the Government is MOOT, as 

the parties have agreed to a resolution. 

The Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant From Referring to Potential Punishment (Doc. 280) filed 

by the Government is MOOT, as it is not at issue. 

The Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of the Victim’s Family (Doc. 283) filed by the Defendant 

is MOOT as the parties have agreed to a resolution. 

The Motion in Limine re Employment Status (Doc. 292) filed by the Defendant is MOOT as the parties 

have agreed to a resolution. 

For case management purposes, the Motion for Leave to Call Rebuttal Witness re Daubert Hearing, 

Doc. 94 Defendant's Motion Under Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and Federal Rules of 

Evidence 702 to Determine Admissibility of Video Evidence (Doc. 192) filed by the Government was 

previously granted. The Motion to Bring Jury to Crime Scene (Doc. 288) filed by the Defendant 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 295 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 2
USA v. Lonnie Ray Swartz Date: August 10, 2017 

Case Number: CR-15-01723-001-TUC-RCC (DTF) Page 2 of 2 

Page 2 of 2 

remains at issue and will be addressed following the filing of the Government’s response and 

Defendant’s reply. 

Motion Hearing: 58 minutes 

Start: 1:30 p.m. 

Stop: 2:28 p.m. 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 295 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01713-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01713-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01713-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Schaun Owens, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County Community College 

District, et al., 

Defendants. 

NO. CV-15-01769-PHX-SPL

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

 Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Court’s Order filed 

September 30, 2017, which granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 

judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff to take nothing, 

and the complaint and action are dismissed.

 Brian D. Karth

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

October 2, 2017 

s/ Rebecca Kobza

 By Deputy Clerk

 

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 59 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the period ended March 31, 2006 of
MPW Industrial Services Group, Inc. (the Issuer) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date hereof. I, Monte R. Black, 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:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 15, 2006



/s/ Monte R. BlackMonte R. BlackChairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10149

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Kyrin Peters, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-77-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kyrin Peters appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for unlawful receipt of a firearm while under 

indictment. Peters argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level 

reckless endangerment enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 because 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 17, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10149 Document: 00516612587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
No. 22-10149

2

his reckless conduct was not the result of attempting to flee from the 

consequences of the offense of conviction. The Government’s unopposed 

motion to correct its brief is GRANTED.

Peters preserved his challenge to the reckless endangerment 

enhancement in the district court; accordingly, we review the district court’s 

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear 

error. United States v. Deckert, 993 F.3d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 2021). There is 

no clear error when the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the 

entire record. See United States v. Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 

2019). 

Citing United States v. Southerland, 405 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2005), 

Peters argues that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was not applicable because the 

evidence reveals that he fled from law enforcement officials because he knew 

he had warrants and also possessed marijuana, not because of the offense of 

conviction. He further asserts that there was an unknown temporal nexus 

between the flight and the receipt of the firearm and that he likely would have 

thought he would have been charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon, not 

receipt.

The district court is permitted to choose between “two permissible 

views of the evidence.” Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d at 216 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). The evidence reveals that it is just as likely that 

Peters fled to avoid detection of the firearm he had in the car as to avoid being 

arrested for warrants or possession of a small amount of marijuana, 

particularly in light of the fact that he admitted to receiving the firearm on or 

about the same day of the chase and that he knew he was under indictment. 

The district court’s conclusion that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was applicable 

given the facts of this case was not clear error. See id. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-10149 Document: 00516612587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 584 Received in Senate (RDS)]







105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 584


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 1997

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
                  For the relief of John Wesley Davis.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

    The time limitations set forth in sections 3702(c) and 3328(a)(1) 
of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply with respect to a 
claim by John Wesley Davis, of Forestville, Maryland, for the amounts 
due to him by the--
            (1) Department of the Navy in the amount of $42,123.84; and
            (2) Department of the Treasury in the amount of $12,508.20.
The amounts due are represented by checks that were received but not 
negotiated by John Wesley Davis.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

    Section 1 shall apply only if John Wesley Davis or his authorized 
representative submits a claim pursuant to such subsection before the 
expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.`
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Carl D. Perry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Enova Systems, Inc.;

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  controls over financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant  deficiencies and financial 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 data; and

      b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date:  March 30, 2004

   /s/   Carl D. Perry
-----------------------
Carl D. Perry,
Chief Executive Officer