alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HOW TO APPLY

» Visit USAJOBS.gov

» Sign in or create an account

» Build your resume

» Search for vacancy announcements

» Apply for a dispatcher position

» Submit all required documentation

Begin Your Career Today

IS DISPATCHING RIGHT FOR YOU?

WWW.USAJOBS.GOV

@BLMcareers

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 

OFFICE OF FIRE AND AVIATION

Dispatching involves:

» Prioritization and organizational skills

» Working well with others under pressure

» Multitasking

» Effective communication

» Desire to protect public lands

» Teamwork

JOIN THE BLM TODAY

WILDLAND FIRE CAREERS

BECOME A

WILDLAND

FIRE
GREAT

PLACE

TO WORK

The world of dispatching is exciting and 

challenging. Dispatchers are responsible for 

mobilizing resources, such as engine crews, 

helicopters, and airtankers, to wildland fires 

and other incidents. Multitasking, prioritization 

skills, and the ability to operate in high-stress 

situations are essential.

Dispatchers use radio and telecommunication 

tools; fire weather, danger, and behavior 

prediction systems; fire suppression, prescribed 

fire, and aviation computer programs; mapping 

applications and topographical maps.

EVER WONDER IF YOU COULD HAVE AN 

IMPACTFUL WILDLAND FIRE CAREER 

WITHOUT BEING ON THE FIRELINE?

WILDLAND FIRE DISPATCHERS

NOT YOUR ORDINARY JOB

A UNIQUE

CAREER

DISPATCHERS GAIN SKILLS IN...

RADIO COMMUNICATION

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FIRE REPORTING

FIRE DISPATCH SYSTEMS

INTERAGENCY OPERATIONS WORKING TOGETHER

Wildland fire dispatching involves different focus 

areas, including:

Initial Attack – These dispatchers are the first to 

receive fire reports, plot initial locations on maps, 

allocate and dispatch resources, coordinate with fire 

managers, order supplies and resources, gather weather 

information, track resources, keep detailed records, and 

manage radio frequencies.

Expanded – When the dispatching workload exceeds 

local initial attack capabilities, expanded dispatch 

centers are formed. These centers coordinate with 

ongoing incidents and dispatch centers to order 

additional resources and supplies.

Aircraft – These employees specialize in aviation 

orders; track aviation resources; allocate aircraft 

based on capabilities, cost, and availability; work with 

aviation managers to ensure adequate supplies and 

equipment are available; and work with the Federal 

Aviation Administration or FAA and military to ensure 

a safe flying environment. 

Intelligence – These dispatchers track incident statistics 

and data; create annual and daily reports; ensure fire 

report accuracy; update dispatch center websites; 

and track trends and weather to assist fire managers’ 

decision-making.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael D. Dale, Chief Executive Officer of ATS Medical, Inc., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 9, 2005

      /s/ Michael D. Dale
      ----------------------------------

Name:  Michael D. Dale
Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                       29
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0265-19

JEFFERY SCOTT ESTRADA, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

LAMB COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of engaging in organized criminal activity. The court of

appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, upon

deciding that Appellant was improperly charged with the invalid predicate offense of

possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Estrada v. State, 570 S.W.3d 402

(Tex. App. -- Amarillo 2019). The State filed a petition for discretionary review contending

in its first ground for review that the Court of Appeals erred in its determination of an invalid
predicate offense, and contending in its second ground for review that it was error to remand

the case to the trial court for a new trial without conducting a harmless error analysis.

On September 25, 2019, we decided in Hughitt v. State that possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver is not a valid predicate offense for a greater offense of

engaging in organized criminal activity, and upheld the judgment of the court of appeals

vacating the conviction. 583 S.W.3d 623 (2019). Accordingly, we refuse the State's first

ground for review.

Furthermore, we recently held in Walker v. State that the lack of a valid predicate offense

under the same circumstances as in this case amounted to a substantive defect in the indictment, but

not the lack of an indictment altogether. No. PD-0399-17, __ S.W.3d __ at *19-20 (Tex. Crim.

App. delivered Feb. 26, 2020). Conviction for possession with intent to deliver was still authorized

by the indictment, and reformation is permissible under these circumstances. Id. at *20. We then

held that remand was necessary for the court of appeals to consider whether specified

necessary conditions for reformation are satisfied. Id. at *21.

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our decision in

Walker. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review on its second

ground, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of

Appeals for further action in light of the opinion in Walker.

Delivered April 15, 2020

Do Not Publish
#### Israel Grossman et al., Appellants, v New York Life Insurance Company, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted October 15, 2012;

decided December 13, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*19 NY3d 991 (2012)].
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of ASI Technology Corporation (the "Company"), in his
capacity and as of the date set forth below, does hereby certify with respect to
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"10-KSB Report") that to his knowledge:

         (1) the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: December 18, 2007


                                          /s/ ERIC M. POLIS
                                          --------------------------
                                          Eric M. Polis, Treasurer and
                                          Principal Financial
                                          Officer of ASI Technology Corporation


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ASI Technology Corporation and will be retained by ASI Technology
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.)
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000476

06-DEC-2019

07:55 AM
**EXHIBIT 23 (i)**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates of our report datedMarch 3, 2005, included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates. 

 

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information setforth therein. 

 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8, No. 33-16766) Baldor Electric Company 1987 Incentive Stock Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-28239) Baldor Electric Company Employee Savings Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-36421) Baldor Electric Company 1989 Stock Option Plan forNon-Employee Directors, (Forms S-8, No. 33-59281, No. 33-60731, and No. 333-62331) Baldor Electric Company 1994 Incentive Stock Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-33109) Baldor Electric Company 1996 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, (Form S-8, No.333-33287) Baldor Electric Company Employees’ Profit Sharing and Savings Plan, and (Form S-8, No. 333-67474) Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, of our report dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates incorporated by reference and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January1, 2005. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Fort Smith, Arkansas 

March 15, 2005
Order entered December 31 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 01552

- CV

IN RE BOBBY DUNCAN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296

- 53157

- 2014



### O RDER

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore and Brown

Based on the Court’s order of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF MARCH 10, 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

------------------------------------------------------------------

WD76846 Damon Alshawn Williams vs. State of Missouri

WD77543 Wayne Allen Childers vs. Carla Sue Childers

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

------------------------------------------------------------------

WD76256 State of Missouri vs. Elijah Pickett

WD77099 State of Missouri vs. Timothy J. Dowell

WD77233 State of Missouri vs. Richard Lee Edwards, Jr.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1622

HERBERT CLARK , III , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOHN E. WHITLEY , Acting Secretary of the Army , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:19

- cv
- 00184

- FL )

Submitted : February 1, 2021 Decided: February 10, 2021

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Herbert Clark , III , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Herbert Clark , III , appeals the district court ’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Clark’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm fo r the reasons stated by the district court. Clark v. McCarthy , N o . 5:19

- cv
- 00 184

- FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* Clark has waived review of the district court’s rejection of his claim for independent action by failing to address the court’s ruling on that claim in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
#### Ayinde Fair, Appellant, v Joseph T. Smith, Individually and as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Decided June 5, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131831 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JEROME HOLLOWAY, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 131831 

 COA: 270025 

Muskegon CC: 05-044206-AH

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000009342
<NAME>                        Baldor Electric Company



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-30-2000

<CASH>                                         5868
<SECURITIES>                                   9138
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105093
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4600
<INVENTORY>                                    120951
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262421
<PP&E>                                         309957
<DEPRECIATION>                                 171137
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          87618
<BONDS>                                        99832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3902
<OTHER-SE>                                     256942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464978
<SALES>                                        621242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               623079
<CGS>                                          423861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  423861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               121358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                74021
<INCOME-TAX>                                   27758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            46263
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   46263
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.34



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

(PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

 

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Apogee Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), does hereby certify, that:

 

The quarterly report on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-QSBfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: August 22, 2005 | /s/        Herbert M. Stein |   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Herbert M. Stein                                               |   |
|                        | Chairman of the Board,                                         |   |
|                        | President, Chief Executive Officer                             |   |
|                        | (principal executive officer)                                  |   |
|                        |                                                           |   |
|                        |                                                           |   |
| Dated: August 22, 2005 | /s/        Paul J. Murphy   |   |
|                        | Paul J. Murphy                                                 |   |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President                     |   |
|                        | Finance, (principal financial officer and                      |   |
|                        | principal accounting officer)                                  |   |
|                             |                                                                |        |  |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000006879
<NAME> APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,183,461
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    160,546
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         538,711
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        34,788
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 436,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,354,400
<COMMON>                                       260,458
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      714,259
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            175,854
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,150,571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,310
<PREFERRED>                                     18,491
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,539,302
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 123,480
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  126,005
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     52,009
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                12,636
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,311,596
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,354,400
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,650,937
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            75,844
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,333,857
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,409,701
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        241,236
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               8,096
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 249,332
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       128,840
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,492
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,706
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  117,786
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       121,392
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       65,697
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         167,889
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Stephen Drabczyk, as Executor of Ronald Drabczyk, Deceased, Respondent, v Fisher Controls International, LLC, Appellant.

Submitted May 2, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

Motion by Crane Co. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein dismissed as academic.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EMMANUEL C. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NEW LIFE VENTURES, INC.,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2016-2622, 2017-1092

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:14-cv-00906-JRG, 

2:14-cv-00907-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MICHAEL SCOTT FULLER, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL 

DONSY LEIN. 

 NICHOLAS A. BROWN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-cross appellant.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 21, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Clerk of Court
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0051

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL BONACORSI,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including December 14, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

November 15 2021

11/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0051