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

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
STATE v. COTE—DISSENT

EVELEIGH, J., concurring and dissenting. I agree

with part II of the majority opinion and join that part

of the opinion. For all of the reasons stated in my concurrence and dissent in State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. ,

, A.3d (2014), which address identical issues

as those presented in this case, I respectfully dissent

from part I of the majority opinion. Accordingly, I would

reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with

instructions to remand the matter to the trial court for

resentencing. Therefore, Irespectfully dissent from part

I of the opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                            8132
<RECEIVABLES>                                   556705
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                              36475
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            89914
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                              98869
<PP&E>                                           13648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  828374
<SHORT-TERM>                                     11251
<PAYABLES>                                      258957
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              95579
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                2881
<LONG-TERM>                                      37819
<COMMON>                                           106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       81914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    828374
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                10598
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             14174
<COMMISSIONS>                                    24939
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                     7936
<FEE-REVENUE>                                     4675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7614
<COMPENSATION>                                   35358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5800
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 14.2
 ALLIED HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL CODE OF CONDUCT
  I. Purpose of Code
   II. Conflict of Interest; Corporate Opportunity
   Gifts and Personal Benefits.




---



##### 



Competing Interests.
   Use of Company Assets or Information.
  III. Nondisclosure of Company Information
  any
 IV. Proper Accounting and Financial Integrity; Accurate Periodic Reports
   - 2 -




---



##### 



V. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations
   VI. Internal Communication and Enforcement of Policy
    - 3 -




---



##### 



VII. Reporting of Any Illegal or Unethical Behavior
     VIII. Compliance, Interpretation of the Code and Effects of Failure to Comply
    IX. Amendments to and Waivers of the Code
    - 4 -




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT AND UNDERSTANDING
OF
ALLIED HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL CODE OF CONDUCT
   Signature of Covered Person
    
    
    
    DatePrint NameWitness
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY,

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0110-CG-M

)

NALL’S NEWTON TIRE a/k/a 

NALL’S NEWON TIRE SERVICE, 

INC.,

)

)

)

)

Defendant. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

 In accordance with the verdict of the jury returned on September 4, 2015, 

finding for the defendant Nall’s Newton Tire on its counter-claim for breach of 

contract damages against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, which damage 

award having been remitted by this Court’s Order of December 7, 2015 (Doc. 141),

and accepted by Nall’s Newton Tire, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 

DECREED that final JUDGMENT is hereby entered in this case in favor of Nall’s 

Newton Tire, against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company as follows:

1) Nall’s Newton Tire is awarded THREE HUNDRED-EIGHTEEN 

THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/100 ($318,500.00) 

in damages plus 6% pre-judgment interest on that award since 

August 15, 2013 through the date of this final judgment (.06 ÷ 365 =

.000164384 * $318,500 = $52.35 daily interest).

Case 2:14-cv-00110-CG-M Document 143 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

2) Nall’s Newton Tire is hereby awarded costs in the amount of FIVE 

THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR and 67/100 

($5,344.67).

3) Post judgment interest is awarded at the statutory rate of .54% pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

The plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is hereby DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE.

In accordance with this Court’s Order entered on August 13, 2015 (Doc. 91), 

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and 

against Nall’s Newton Tire on Nall’s Newton Tire’s counterclaim for bad faith.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00110-CG-M Document 143 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 2
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 761

AN ACT

To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson

Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area

in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international

authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in

the establishment of this National Conservation Area,

and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Morley Nelson Snake

5 River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Act’’.
 †

2

S 761 ES

1 SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NA2 TIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

3 (a) RENAMING.—Public Law 103–64 is amended—

4 (1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii–1(2)), by

5 inserting ‘‘Morley Nelson’’ before ‘‘Snake River

6 Birds of Prey National Conservation Area’’; and

7 (2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii–

8 2(a)(1)), by inserting ‘‘Morley Nelson’’ before

9 ‘‘Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation

10 Area’’.

11 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg12 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

13 States to the Snake River Birds of Prey National Con14 servation Area shall be deemed to be a reference to the

15 Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Con16 servation Area.

17 (c) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—Public Law 103–64

18 is further amended—

19 (1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii–

20 2(a)(1)), by striking ‘‘(hereafter referred to as the

21 ‘conservation area’)’’; and

22 (2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii–3)—

23 (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘Con24 servation Area’’ and inserting ‘‘conservation

25 area’’; and
†

3

S 761 ES

1 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘Visitors

2 Center’’ and inserting ‘‘visitors center’’.

Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 761

AN ACT

To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National

for other purposes.lishment of this National Conservation Area, andbirds of prey, who was instrumental in the estabMorley Nelson, an international authority ontional Conservation Area in honor of the lateMorley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey NaConservation Area in the State of Idaho as the
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Shouquan Sun, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Wind Energy, Inc. for the period ended October 31, 2010 (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 China Wind Energy, Inc.






Dated: December 8, 2010






/s/Shouquan Sun


Shouquan Sun


President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer)


China Wind Energy, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to China Wind Energy, Inc. and will be retained by China Wind Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THEUNITED STATES CODE

 

 

I, HarveyBeker, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, theGeneral Partner of The Millburn Global Opportunity Fund L.P. (the “Fund”),certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Fund.

 

 
| Date:  | March, 28,  2003 |                        |   |
|--------|------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |             |
|   | /s/              | Harvey Beker                |   |
|   |             | Harvey Beker                |
|   |             | Co-Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
##### 



SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

EXHIBIT 99(c)

MEDIA CONTACT:
Peggy A. Palter
(847) 286-8361

INVESTOR RELATIONS CONTACT:
Pam White
(847) 286-1468

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 2, 2002

Sears Amends Filings to Reclassify Accounting Change

HOFFMAN ESTATES, Ill.  As previously reported, during the second quarter
of 2002 Sears, Roebuck and Co. refined its method of determining its allowance
for uncollectible accounts, resulting in a pre-tax charge of $300 million ($191
million, net of tax). The company initially recorded the charge as a
cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle as of the beginning of
2002. In consideration of further interpretive guidance from the staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Sears has amended its filings to report the
effect of the refinement in the allowance methodology as a change in
estimate instead of a change in accounting principle.

The effect of the above on the companys results is to increase reported
first quarter 2002 net income by $191 million ($.59 per share) and to reduce
second quarter 2002 reported net income by the same amount. The company has
filed amended quarterly reports for the first and second quarter to reflect
this change.

- more -





---



##### 



SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

Sears/Add One

About Sears

Sears, Roebuck and Co. is a broadline retailer with significant service
and credit businesses. In 2001, the companys annual revenue was more than $41
billion. The company offers its wide range of apparel, home and automotive
products and services to families in the U.S. through Sears stores nationwide,
including approximately 870 full-line stores. Sears also offers a variety of
merchandise and services through its Web site, www.sears.com. In June 2002,
Sears acquired Lands End, a direct merchant of traditionally styled, classic
Lands End clothing offered to customers around the world through regular
mailings of its specialty catalogs and online at www.landsend.com.

# # #
Overview

NGA CORE enables teams to deliver software faster and more consistently. Its DevSecOps and Platformas-a-Service components provide a common set of tools to develop, test, review and deploy code or 

containers. NGA CORE also makes it easy to find, access and share data as well as continuously monitor 

your software in real-time. Throughout the environment, hands-on developer support is provided up to and 

through onboarding. Here is a high-level view of how those components work together:

How does NGA CORE benefit software teams developing, 

deploying or operating code?

1. Start fast with self-service tools and hands-on support.

2. With a platform deployment, spend less time on infrastructure and streamline security authorization.

3. Deliver fast as a team with a common build environment.

4. Simple cost model and process to track what you’re spending.

Is it available today?

Yes. NGA CORE is available today on Unclassified, Secret and Top Secret classification levels.

Who can use NGA CORE? 

Anyone developing or operating government software can use NGA CORE.

What does it cost to use NGA CORE?

Internal NGA teams and contractors working on behalf of NGA only pay compute and service costs as part 

of their Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) usage. If you are not affiliated with NGA, there are costs associated 

with licensing as well as compute and services. 

How do I get started? 

To get started or to learn more about topics like onboarding and usage costs, email the NGA Developer 

Experience team at NGADevXTeam@nga.mil. If you have a CAC, you can go to https://devx.pages.gs.mil/

for more detailed information. CORE overviews for both NGA internal and external customers are available 

at https://ivideo.intelink.gov by searching for "NGA CORE 101".

Approved for public release, 22-420

What 

is NGA 

CORE?

NGA CORE is the 

fastest way to 

deliver missionspecific software — 

independent of the 

underlying data and 

infrastructure. The 

shared environment 

is a collection 

of integrated 

development 

services for teams 

inside and outside 

of NGA.

DEVELOP

SECURE

OPERATE

Write and 

test code

Access and 

share APIs

Continuous Monitoring

Software tradecraft - Developer Experience

Deploy and run 

code, containers

Orchestrate 

workflows

Publish and 

consume data

Approved for public release, NGA-U-2023-02692
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0698n.06

Case No. 19-4206

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RONALD JACKSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: CLAY, GILMAN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Ronald Jackson, Jr. robbed a 7-Eleven at gunpoint. He was 

caught the next day, and the federal government charged him with three crimes: robbery, using

and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm and ammunition as 

a felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) (robbery), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (brandishing), 922(g)(1) (felon in 

possession). Jackson pled guilty to all three crimes. He now appeals his conviction for the second 

crime—brandishing a gun during a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

Jackson argues for the first time on appeal that robbery does not count as a crime of 

violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (defining robbery). But we have already held that it does. See 

United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285, 291–92 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding that robbery as defined by 

18 U.S.C. § 1951 qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); see also United States 

v. Camp, 903 F.3d 594, 597 (6th Cir. 2018) (same). Thus, the district court did not err—much less 
Case No. 19-4206, United States v. Jackson

- 2 -

plainly err—in accepting Jackson’s plea and sentencing him based on the robbery constituting a 

crime of violence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). And since Jackson does not challenge his 

convictions or sentence on any other grounds, we affirm.
****

**In The**

**Court of Appeals**

**Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo**

**________________________**

**No. 07-12-0403-CV**

**________________________**

**Kenneth Hickman-Bey, Appellant**

**v.**

**Tamala Alvarez, Appellee**

****

**On Appeal from the 69th District Court**

**Hartley County, Texas**

**Trial Court No. 4739H, Honorable Ron Enns, Presiding**

****

**March 21, 2013**

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

**Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.**

	Kenneth Hickman-Bey (Hickman-Bey) appeals an order setting aside a default judgment he obtained against Tamala Alvarez (Alvarez).  Through three issues, he contends that Alvarez 1) was negligent in failing to file an answer after being served with his lawsuit, 2) constructively waived notice, and 3) presented false and misleading grounds in the bill of review.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	An order granting a bill of review is interlocutory when it vacates a prior judgment and reinstates the original cause and no appeal lies from this interlocutory order.    *Jordan v. Jordan,* 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995); *In re Office of Atty. Gen*., 276 S.W.3d 611, 620 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding).  In the case before us, the trial court set aside the default judgment, thereby putting the parties back to a point prior to the default judgment and after suit was filed.  The merits of the case were not determined.  Therefore, the appeal is interlocutory and must be dismissed.

	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

							Per Curiam

2

# image1.png
#### State v. Harris

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 349P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-929)

Dismissed 08/23/07
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 2024-04

January 26, 2024

Contact

Media Relations

Phone: (571) 557-5450

Email: mediarelations@nga.mil

NGA awards $794M IDIQ for research and development

SPRINGFIELD, Virginia – The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency awarded a new $794.1 

million Research Development Contract indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract on Jan. 

25. The four companies eligible to compete for task orders are Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed 

Martin Corporation, Reinventing Geospatial, Inc. and Solis Applied Science, LLC.

The RDC IDIQ will provide research and development services and support to NGA’s Research 

& Development directorate. It is a five-year contract with a two-year optional extension. The first 

task order for the IDIQ will be competed in February 2024. 

RDC activities will include the development, maturation, testing and integration of R&D concepts 

into functional prototypes, transition of developed capabilities into an operational capability, and 

provision of cloud environments for development activities. Supported RDC projects include 

research into foundational geospatial-intelligence, advanced phenomenologies and analytic 

technologies. 

# # #

About NGA

NGA delivers world-class geospatial intelligence that provides a decisive advantage to policymakers, 

warfighters, intelligence professionals and first responders.

NGA is a unique combination of intelligence agency and combat support agency. It is the world leader in 

timely, relevant, accurate and actionable geospatial intelligence. NGA enables the U.S. intelligence 

community and the Department of Defense to fulfill the president’s national security priorities to protect 

the nation.

For more information about NGA, visit us online at nga.mil, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook and X/Twitter.
#### State v. White

Case below: 184 N.C. App. - (3 July 2007)

No. 384P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1264)

Denied 10/11/07
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 23189)    
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 2, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. Michael D. Fahrbach*, Haven, Kansas; to acquire voting shares of Wheatland Investments, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of BankHaven, both in Haven, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 13, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-11484 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S