alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 pane 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 ar 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 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. RI CA RD O G O N ZA LEZ- M O RA LES, a. k. a. R i cardo G on za l es -M oral es , a. k. a. Jose G on za l ez , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 10302 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - C R - 0 1 0 1 9 - MHM 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 r i z ona M aryH . M ur gui a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i c ar do G onz a l e z - M or a l e s appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 3 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rr e e n trya f

te rd e p o rta tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), G o n za lez- M o ra les’s 

# FI LED JU L 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 10302 2 c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v id e dth e ap p e llan t th e o p p o rtu n ity t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D, and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,359
<PP&E>                                         784,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                 507,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 496,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,826
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     213,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   496,818
<SALES>                                        180,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,924
<CGS>                                          164,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    371
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                371
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       371
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,081
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,853
<OTHER-SE>                                     (47,424)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,016
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,902   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,902)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-40489 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Kimberly Knebel Janise, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-21-1

______________________________ Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kimberly Knebel Janise has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Janise has no t filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40489 Document: 00516606175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023No. 22-40489

2 issue for appellate review. Accordin gly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 22-40489 Document: 00516606175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2023
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

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

 

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

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation 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 forestablishing 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe 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 information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 20, 2004
#### In Re: Charles Robert BAREFOOT, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 09-1325.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 28, 2009.

Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., 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:

Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing that Judge Boyle be recused from Barefoot’s criminal proceedings. We conclude Barefoot is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

We note Barefoot failed to allege with any particularity the extrajudicial bias necessary to warrant recusal of any judge and is not entitled to the relief sought. *See Beard,*811 F.2d at 827.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

18 , 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00858- CV

SACHIM EMANUEL HOLDING D/B/A J. BRIDAL , Appellant
V. STATEWIDE COMMERCIALS INS. BROKER, MOUNT VERNON FIRE INS. COMPANY, UNITED STATES LIABILITY INS. GROUP, GMP HOUSTON PROPERTY, LT D. , AND BLISS & GLENNON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-65356

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from an order signed September 29, 2017. On January 9, 2018, appellant filed a motion to withdraw the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Jewell.
#### Rafael V. Roman, Respondent, v Stephanie Gallagher et al., Appellants.

[872 NYS2d 501]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered October 9, 2007, which denied their motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the plaintiff on their counterclaims on the ground that the defendants’ supplemental papers in support of their motion were not submitted to the court in proper form. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court entered March 7, 2008, as denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for leave to renew their original motion *(see*CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the order entered March 7, 2008, is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for leave to renew their original motion is granted, upon renewal, the order entered October 9, 2007, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination of the defendants’ original motion on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 9, 2007, is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order entered March 7, 2008; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for, inter alia, leave to enter a default judgment against the plaintiff on their counterclaims on the ground that the defendants’ supplemental papers in support of their motion were not submitted to the court in proper form. The court subsequently *828denied the defendants’ motion for, among other things, leave to renew their original motion.

Under the circumstances of this case, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for leave to renew their original motion should have been granted and, upon renewal, the court should have vacated the order entered October 9, 2007, and determined the defendants’ original motion on the merits. Prudenti, RJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Exhibit21

Subsidiaries of Allied Healthcare InternationalInc.

|                                                                                                                                   |  |  |                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|-----------------------------|
| Subsidiary                                                                                                                        |  |  | Jurisdictionof Organization |
| Allied Healthcare Group HoldingsLimited (formerly known as Allied Healthcare Group Limited andas Transworld Holdings (UK)Limited) |  |  | England                     |
| AlliedHealthcare Holdings Limited (formerly known as Transworld Healthcare(UK) Limited)                                           |  |  | England                     |
| Allied StaffingProfessionalsLimited                                                                                               |  |  | England                     |
| OmnicareLimited                                                                                                                   |  |  | England                     |
| Allied HealthcareGroup Limited                                                                                                    |  |  | England                     |
| AlliedRespiratory Limited                                                                                                         |  |  | England                     |
| MedigasLimited                                                                                                                    |  |  | England                     |
|                                                                                                                                   |

----
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

hinescr@mail.nih.gov

June 2022

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           56539
<RECEIVABLES>                                   655605
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                              12000
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           235894
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             131062
<PP&E>                                           13865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1128593
<SHORT-TERM>                                     59905
<PAYABLES>                                      253139
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             242361
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               52741
<LONG-TERM>                                      71290
<COMMON>                                           107
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       92193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1128593
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                10327
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             14897
<COMMISSIONS>                                    28500
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                     8703
<FEE-REVENUE>                                     5718
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8002
<COMPENSATION>                                   39244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5879
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 113

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20150 D0 3170 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the b rief until September 9, 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE STATE ’S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 9 , 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of July , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 531 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to exempt certain identified 

varieties of tomatoes from agricultural marketing orders. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to exempt certain 

identified varieties of tomatoes from agricultural marketing orders. 

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 ‘‘Agricultural Marketing 

5 Success Act of 2005’’ or the ‘‘AMS Act’’. 
2 

•S 531 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN IDENTIFIED VARIETIES OF 

2 TOMATOES FROM AGRICULTURAL MAR3 KETING ORDERS. 

4 Section 8c(2) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 

5 U.S.C. 608c(2)), reenacted with amendments by the Agri6 cultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No order issued pur8 suant to this section shall be applicable to identified vari9 eties of tomatoes produced in the State of Florida under 

10 an identity preservation and biotechnology verification 

11 program administered by the Secretary.’’. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6965

TYRONE WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN ANTHONY, Lee

Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-03-3657-18AJ-2)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED