alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (10938)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Supervised Release)

DANIEL ONEAL NEWBURN CASE NUMBER: 1:10-CR-00080-001

USM NUMBER: 10968-003

THE DEFENDANT: Andrew M. Jones, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision conditions: Statutory, 2 & 7 as set forth in the Petition 

dated 5/23/2014.

was found in violation of supervision condition: 

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

Statutory

2

7

New Offenses

Technical

Technical

4/22/2014, 4/25/14 & 5/2/14

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is 

imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, 

costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

Defendant's Social Security No. 9368

Defendant's Date of Birth: 1972

Defendant's Residence Address:

Citronelle, AL

__________________________

Defendant's Mailing Address:

___________________________

___________________________

December 16, 2014

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 5, 2015

Date

X

Case 1:10-cr-00080-CG-C Document 48 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: DANIEL ONEAL NEWBURN

Case Number: 1:10-CR-00080-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS, said term to run consecutively to the 

term imposed in 14-cr-153-001.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau 

of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 1:10-cr-00080-CG-C Document 48 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S DECEMBER 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  752,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (78,800)
<INVENTORY>                                     20,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               734,700
<PP&E>                                       8,695,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,830,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,090,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,137,800
<BONDS>                                        496,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,721,800
<OTHER-SE>                                    (169,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,090,700
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,470,700
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,462,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (8,800)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                933,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                   339,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            593,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   593,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  WE HAVE INCLUDED 
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN COST OF SERVICE AND
PRODUCTS IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
N1-Network Protection Devices

USGv6_NPD_IDS.html[3/30/18, 11:11:40 AM]

USGv6 Test Selection Tables*

Intrusion Detection Systems

N3-Conformance: IDS v1.3

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Configuration Option: IDS 

Test Specification Id:

[Network Protection Devices] Network Protection Devices Test Specification version 1.2, [editor: ICSA Labs ].

Reference:

[Profile-v1] NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Instrusion Detection Systems Checklist

NOTE: Common NPD Requirements must also be performed.

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 4.1: Known attack detection & Logging and alerts NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 4.2: Malformed packet detection NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 4.3: Port-scanning detection NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 4.4: Tunneled traffic detection NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 4.5: Logging and alerts NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 4.6: Performance under load, fail-safe NPD

* The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

ERNEST BRAGGS : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-00058-WS-C 

KEITH REALTY MIDTOWN/ : 

CORPORATE OVERSEER, et al., 

 : 

Defendants. 

 JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff=s claims against Defendants 

Keith Realty Midtown/Corporate Overseer, Robert Keith, Nofio Pecoraro, Susan Milling, and 

Dauphin Realty, Inc., be and are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice, prior to service of 

process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. 

DONE this 26th day of July, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00058-WS-C Document 15 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 12, 2018

s1009

Order 

Clerk

October 12, 2018

156458(68)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156458

COA: 332734

Eaton CC: 15-020176-FH

JAMES DAVID URBAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to strike ex parte affidavit is DENIED.
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-20064 Summary Calendar

__________________ SAMUEL CHARLES VANNESS, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JAMES BENNETT, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-94-4061
- - - - - - - - - - August 28, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Samuel Charles VanNess, IV, # 725945, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit for failure to effectuate proper service. For the first time on appeal, VanNess contends that his failure to effect service was due to the failures of the U.S. Marshal and court clerk to perform the duties required of them. This alleged error, involving questions of fact, does notNo. 96-20064 -2- rise to the level of plain error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995). VanNess's appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
UNITS FOR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES

Conversion
Quantity Symbol __ Gaussian & cgs emu? factor,C° SI & rationalized mks ©
Magnetic flux density, B gauss (G) 7 10-4 tesla (T), Wb/m?
magnetic induction
Magnetic flux ® maxwell (Mx), G-cm? lo-® weber (Wb), volt second (V's)
Magnetic potential difference, yp gilbert (Gb) lo/4n ampere (A)
magnetomotive force
Magnetic field strength, H oersted (Oe), Gb/em ——10°/4r A/m
magnetizing force
(Volume) magnetization & M emu/em}* 10° A/m
(Volume) magnetization 40M G 10°/4ar A/m
Magnetic polarizati ;
jagnetic polarization, ai emu/em? 4nx10-* T, Wb/m?!
intensity of magnetization
a 1 Am
(Mass) magnetization o,M emu/g 4nxt0-? wo on
Magnetic moment m emu, erg/G 10-3 A-m’, joule per tesla (J/T)
Magnetic dipole moment i emu, erg/G 4x 107! Wob-m‘
an . : 4a dimensionless
Vv tibilit , di less, emu/cm*
(Volume) susceptibility XK limensionless, emu/cm: (4m)? 10-7 henry per meter (H/m), Wb/(A-m)
4m x 10-3 m3/kg
aa 3
(Mass) susceptibility Xp» Kp cm’*/g, emu/g (47)?x10-" ~— Hem?/kg
4x 10-6 m?/mol
a ;
(Molar) susceptibility Xmob Kmoi  cm?/mol, emu/mol (4n)?Xx10-8 — Hem?/mol
Permeability B dimensionless 4X 1077 H/m, Wb/(A-m)
Relative permeability/ Mr not defined dimensionless
(Volume) energy density, Ww erg/em? 10-! Vm
energy product
Demagnetization factor D,N dimensionless 1/4 dimensionless

a. Gaussian units and cgs emu are the same for magnetic properties. The defining relation is B=H +47M.

6. Multiply a number in Gaussian units by C to convert it to SI (e.g., 1 Gx 10-* T/G= 10-4 T).

c. SI (Systéme International d’Unités) has been adopted by the National Bureau of Standards. Where two conversion factors are
given, the upper one is recognized under, or consistent with, SI and is based on the definition B=o(H+M), where
bo=42 X 10-7’ H/m. The lower one is not recognized under SI and is based on the definition B =poH +J, where the symbol
J is often used in place of J.

1 gauss= 10° gamma (y).

Both oersted and gauss are expressed as cm 4 in terms of base units.

A/m was often expressed as “ampere-turn per meter” when used for magnetic field strength.

Magnetic moment per unit volume.

The designation “emu” is not a unit.

Recognized under SI, even though based on the definition B =poH +J. See footnote c.

br=p/po=14x, all in SI. py is equal to Gaussian p.

B-H and poM-H have SI units J/m*, M-H and B-H/4m have Gaussian units erg/cm’.

“WA gi/tg-t

POH SORE A

R. B. Goldfarb and F. R. Fickett, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80303, March 1985
NBS Special Publication 696 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant      to**

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

**As      Adopted pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| Date:                May 31, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Craig E. Peeples                                                                                                |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Craig                E. Peeples                                                                                                    |
|                              |   | Interim                Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Controller(Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |

**A      signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.      and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DOUGLAS JOHN MILLER, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50346

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-02145-BEN-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Douglas John Miller, Jr. appeals the district court’s finding that he

committed an assault in violation of the terms of his supervised release. He argues

that the district court violated his due process right to confront witnesses at his

FILED

APR 06 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
revocation hearing by admitting hearsay testimony of the victim. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

To determine whether to admit hearsay testimony that implicates a

defendant’s right to confront witnesses in a revocation hearing, the district court

must “weigh the releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right to

confrontation against the Government’s good cause for denying it.” United States

v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1999). In considering the releasee’s

interest in confronting the witness, the court looks to “the importance of the

hearsay evidence to the court’s ultimate finding and the nature of the facts to be

proven by the hearsay evidence.” Id. at 1171. Here, circumstantial evidence

strongly supported the victim’s statement identifying Miller. Miller was present at

the scene of the assault, with blood on his shoes, and seated near a trail of fresh

blood leading directly to the site of the beating. The circumstances in which the

victim made his statement further suggest reliability: he made the statement nearly

contemporaneously with the incident, while his face was still bloody. Because

these factors corroborate the victim’s statement, they diminish Miller’s interest in

confronting him.

Correspondingly, the government’s attempts to secure the victim’s in-court

testimony were adequate. The victim had already informed local police that he did

2
not wish to proceed with legal action after the assault occurred. The government

nonetheless attempted to reach him before the revocation hearing. An officer

identified and visited the victim’s last-known address, but the victim no longer

lived there. She then called the victim’s last-known phone number but reached a

recorded message. Finally, the officer ran the victim’s information through a law

enforcement database but found no other addresses or phone numbers for him. 

Given the evidence corroborating the victim’s out-of-court statement and the

government’s efforts to reach him, we conclude that the district court properly

admitted the hearsay testimony. 

AFFIRMED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LANIER WORLDWIDE, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,333
<INVENTORY>                                    155,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               545,034
<PP&E>                                         483,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                 317,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,050,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          486,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           879
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,050,127
<SALES>                                      1,282,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,790
<CGS>                                          834,814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,880
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,677
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,203
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          1,340
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 183,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                   11,000
<INVENTORY>                                   221,831
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              408,791
<PP&E>                                      1,200,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                333,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,344,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,386,433
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        5,384
<OTHER-SE>                                   (796,425)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,344,365
<SALES>                                       675,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              675,577
<CGS>                                         734,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 734,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              431,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             81,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (572,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (572,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                40,000
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (532,458)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4829 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4829

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 103 East Kleberg in Kingsville, Texas, as the ``Irma Rangel Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2004

Mr. Hinojosa (for himself, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Turner of Texas, Mr. 
Bell, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Frost, Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Carter, Mr. Hall, Mr. Culberson, 
 Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Thornberry, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. 
 Ortiz, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Barton 
of Texas, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Doggett, Mr. 
 Sessions, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Paul, and Mr. 
Sam Johnson of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 103 East Kleberg in Kingsville, Texas, as the ``Irma Rangel Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF IRMA RANGEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 East Kleberg in Kingsville, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Irma Rangel Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Irma 
Rangel Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```