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

 

I, John B. Wood, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Telos Corporation; 

 

2.    Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)for the registrant and we have: 

 

a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c)    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identifiedfor the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6.    The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: August 14, 2003
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

November 20, 2009

Ms. Susan Desmarais Bonnen

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Post Office Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Joe H. Staley Jr.

Law Offices of Joe H. Staley, Jr., PC

3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 850

Dallas, TX 75205

Ms. Sydney N. Floyd

4518 Belle Glade Dr.

Houston, TX 77018

RE:Case Number:  08-0061

Court of Appeals Number:  05-06-00003-CV

Trial Court Number:  CC-00-02122-D

Style:THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY SIGN ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied the motion for rehearing in the above-referenced cause.  The Court’s opinion of June 26, 2009 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is issued.  The judgment, issued June 26, 2009, remains in place.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  (Justice Guzman not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 08-0061Page 2**
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF STERLING**

Subsidiaries of Sterling Financial Corporation 

Golf Escrow Corporation 

Golf Savings Bank 

Klamath First Capital Trust I 

Lynnwood Financial Statutory Trust I 

Lynnwood Financial Statutory Trust II 

Sterling Capital Trust III 

Sterling Capital Trust IV 

Sterling Capital Statutory Trust V 

Sterling Capital Trust VI 

Sterling Capital Trust VII 

Sterling Capital Trust VIII 

Sterling Capital Trust IX 

Sterling Savings Bank 

Tri-Cities Mortgage Corporation 

Subsidiaries of Sterling Savings Bank 

Action Mortgage Company 

The Dime Service Corporation 

Evergreen Environmental Development Corporation 

Evergreen First Service Corporation 

Harbor Financial Services, Inc.(a subsidiary of Evergreen First Service Corporation) 

Fidelity Service Corporation 

INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company 

Mason-McDuffie Financial Corporation (a subsidiary of INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company) 

Source Capital Corporation 

Peter W. Wong Associates, Inc. (a subsidiary of Source Capital Corporation) 

Source Capital Leasing Corporation (a subsidiary of Source Capital Corporation)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rolando Herrera, Appellant.

Submitted December 27, 2010;

decided January 6, 2011

*728Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robin G. Stein-berg, Esq. and Matthew Caldwell, Esq., care of the Bronx Defenders, 860 Courtlandt Ave., Bronx, New York 10451 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jonathan W. Diermyer, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 461]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 5, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment after only two weeks without good cause. Claimant advised both the employer and a Department of Labor representative that he was quitting due to his inability to handle the demands of working the night shift even though he knew this assignment was temporary. Dissatisfaction with one’s work schedule or hours does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment *(see Matter of Casey [Commissioner of Labor],*37 AD3d 964 [2007]; *Matter of Kattaya [Commissioner of Labor],*
      *99732 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006]). To the extent that claimant testified that he left his job due to illness, he also conceded that he had not sought medical treatment before quitting and never advised his employer of any health problems. In addition, claimant did not receive any medical advice to leave his employment *(see Matter of Encarnacao [Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2007]) or offer any medical evidence of his claimed inability to work. Under these circumstances, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

Mercure, J.E, Rose, Lahtinen, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as explained in Note 1
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September
16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from
generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other
royalty trusts); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THESAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann Anderson

Lee Ann AndersonTitle:
    
    Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate: November 9, 2011
 
 *
    
    The Trust has no executive officers.
#### In Re: J. Harold SMITH, Petitioner.

No. 09-1120.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 28, 2009.

J. Harold Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. '

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

J. Harold Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his motion and seeking recusal of the district court judge.

Our review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that the court has ruled on Smith’s motion. Accordingly, because the district court recently decided Smith’s case, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con*253tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOCQUI TENAZ RICHARDSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-447 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 2, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; J. Frank Porter, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00078

- CV

NABORS DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.

, Appellant

v.

Leslie Wayne RATLIFF and Shannon Ratliff, Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 05

- 00091

- CVL Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Each party shall bear their resp ective costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( d).

SIGNED September 25, 2019.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : MAR I A E L E NA GA MB OA NI C DA O, D ebt or,

________________________ MAR I A E L E NA GA MB OA NI C DA O, A p p e lla n t, v. CA SH A LA SK A I I , LLC, A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35102 D . C . N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 1 5 1 - T MB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka T i m othyM . B ur ge s s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED JAN 03 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35102 2 M ar ia E len a G am b o a N icd ao ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng her s ec on d app ea l fr om the bank rupt cycourt ’ s am ended j udgm e nti n he rC hapt e r7 a dve r s a rypr oc e e di ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 ( d ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , D e c ke rv . T r a m ie l ( I n r e J T S C o r p .) , 617 F. 3 d 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed N i cdao’ s s ec on d app ea l because, af t er th e b an k ru p t cy co u rtam en d ed i t s j u d g m en to n rem an dfo l l o w i n g N i cd ao ’ s fi rst appeal , there w er e no add i t i on al i ss ues f or the di stri ctcourtt o revi ew and i tw as p r e c lu d e d f

r o m r e c o n s id e r in g p r e v io u s lyd e c id e dis s u e s . Se e T h o m a s v . B ib le , 983 F . 2d 152, 154 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne pr e c l ude s r e c ons i de r a t i on o f a n is s u e th a t h a s a lr e a d yb e e n d e c id e db yth e s a m e c o u rt, o rah ig h e rc o u rt, in the i de nt i c a l c a s e ) . N i c da o a l s o f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h gr ounds ba s e d upon w hi c h the di s tr i c tc ourtc oul d e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on nott o appl ythe pr e c l us i ve l a w of the c a s e d o c tr in e a n d r e c o n s id e ris s u e s it h a dd e c id e din th e f ir s t ap p e a l. Se e i d. a t155 (di sc ussi ng l i m i t ed except i on s t o the l aw of the ca se do ctri ne). W e d o n o t a d d r e s s is s u e s r a is e db yN ic d a o f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. See B r ow n v . G e n. T

e l. C o. of Cal . , 10 8 F . 3d 20 8, 21 0, n. 1 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). AF F I RME D.
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [STB Docket Nos. MC-F-4901 and MC-F-6152]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

United Van Lines, LLC (United), on behalf of itself and certain affiliated companies, filed an application with the Board under 49 U.S.C. 14302 for approval of revisions to its pooling agreement. The Board establishes a procedural schedule for the submission of public comments on the proposed revisions, principally the requirement that carrier agents may not transport under their own motor carrier authority any interstate shipments of household goods except, subject to United policies, shipments for the government. After reviewing any comments received, the Board will determine whether it has sufficient information to decide whether the proposed revisions meet the standard for approval under section 14302 or whether a hearing is necessary prior to such a determination.

# DATES:

Comments on the proposed revisions to United's pooling agreement shall be filed by July 2, 2009. United may file a response to any comments by July 17, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Docket Nos. MC-F-4901 and MC-F-6152, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of all pleadings must be served on United's representative, James A. Calderwood, Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger L.L.P., 888 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3309.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julia Farr, (202) 245-0359. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, available on our Web site at                     *http://www.stb.dot.gov.*

Decided: May 12, 2009.

By the Board, Acting Chairman Mulvey, and Vice Chairman Nottingham.

Jeffrey Herzig,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. E9-11536 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit A

- Amendment to Coordinated Remedy Order (PUBLIC)
- Amendment to Coordinated Remedy Order - Exhibit A (BMW Request for Extension)
# Academia

          -  Home 
          -  Work With Us 
          -               Academia            

          - Industry 
          - Government 
          - International 

NGA has a long history of partnering with the academic community on mutually beneficial activities.

Learn more about our key academic outreach initiatives below.

 

### Contact

Academia@nga.mil

 

**Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA)**

The proliferation of commercial imagery analysis, geographic information system technologies, and standardized data formats, creates opportunities for collaborative research and development between NGA and the private sector to enhance national scientific and technical GEOINT capabilities.

 

**NGA Academic Research Program (NARP)**

NGA seeks grant proposals from eligible U.S. institutions for pathbreaking GEOINT research in areas of potential interest to NGA, the DoD, and the intelligence community. The Broad Agency Announcement is available on Grants.gov as Funding Opportunity Number HM0476-18-BAA-0001.

 

**Recruiting Events**

Find out when NGA recruiters are coming to a city near you.

 

**Student Opportunities**

Are you looking for an opportunity to develop your skills, enhance your career potential, and make a difference each day? Join NGA’s elite student workforce!

 

**Visiting Scientist Fellowship Program**

NGA’s seeks to recruit domain specialists engaged in scholarly scientific research related to the agency’s strategic goals and GEOINT technologies, processes and methodologies. Fellowships are available  to U.S. citizens who are recent undergraduate and graduate degree holders within five years of their most recent degree, and are administered via a government-wide contract with the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Appointments can range from 6 months to 5 years.

          -
#### AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAN JOSE WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION; Michael P. Schroll, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 08-1504.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2009.

Decided: May 14, 2009.

Peter D. Greenspun, Christie A. Leary, Greenspun, Davis & Leary, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Cynthia E. Rodgers-Waire, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

*218Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

San Jose Water Conservation Corporation and Michael P. Schroll (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal a judgment in favor of AvalonBay Communities, Inc., in Aval-onBay’s action arising out of a fraudulent scheme executed by Schroll and San Jose.

Appellants argue that the district court erred in denying their motion to stay the case during the criminal investigation of the case’s underlying facts and in not joining alleged co-tortfeasor James Willden as a defendant. We disagree for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Avalon-Bay Comtys., Inc. v. San Jose Water Conservation Corp.,*2007 WL 2481291 (E.D.Va.2007) (denial of motion to stay); J.A. 663-64 (denial of Schroll’s motion for reconsideration). Appellants also argue that the district court erred in drawing adverse inferences from Schroll’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights and in piercing San Jose’s corporate veil. However, as the district court explained, it took neither of those actions.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roger Jefferson, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 804]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered February 8, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal trespass in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not object to the defendant’s appearance in court in prison attire until the end of the first day of jury selection *(see People v Turner,*5 NY3d 476 [2005]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *People v Marshall,*2 AD3d 1157 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices 

# Order

July 7, 2015

150440 & ( 145 )

JORGE FERRER and KATHLEEN FERRER,

Plaintiffs,

SC: 150440

v COA: 308921

Wayne CC : 99

- 923846

- NZ

COUNTY OF WAYNE,

Defendant/Third

- Party Plaintiff,

a nd

WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY,

successor in interest to WAYNE COUNTY,

Appellee,

a nd

WALBRIDGE ALDINGER CO.,

Defendant/Third

- Party Defendant/

Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee,

a nd

SA COMUNALE, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant/

Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

MAT FLEX, INC., and RAPISTAN, INC.,

Defendant s /Cross

- Defendant s,

and

NORTHWEST AIRLINES,

Third

- Party Defendant/Cross

Plaintiff

- Appellee.

________________________________________ /2

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.

July 7, 2015 On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the application for leave to

appeal is GRANTED. The dismissal is with prejudice and without costs to any party.

Clerk