alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Tuesday, April 1, 1997*

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

DD-100.

#### Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Alexander.

On February 18,1997, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, filed a motion for order to appear and show cause, requesting the court to issue an order directing respondent, George M. Alexander, to appear and show cause why he should not be found in contempt of this court. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be, and is, hereby granted to the extent that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before twenty days from the date of this order why he should not be found in contempt.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Habermehl Consulting and Company 

Under Contract No. SP3300-13-C-0012 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59723 

Isaias "Cy" Alba IV, Esq. 

Kathryn V. Flood, Esq. 

PilieroMazza PLLC 

Washington, DC 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. 

Janet R. Wise, Esq. 

Associate General Counsel 

DLA Distribution 

New Cumberland, PA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 14 July 2015 ? / 

/ /.)? . '/ (&-- ~~,~~~.i1~ Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59723, Appeal of Habermehl 

Consulting and Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
@article{1207211,
  author = {Gabriela Martinez and Chao Li and Alexander Staron and John Kitching and Chandra Raman and William McGehee},
  title = {A chip-scale atomic beam clock},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-13 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Nature Communications},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935976},
  language = {en},
}
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 185 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One 

Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself and Mr. COLE) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Rules in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Rules (here4 after in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), 

5 including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be 

6 paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of Rep7 resentatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more 

8 than $6,654,380 for the One Hundred Sixteenth Con9 gress. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 185 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $3,327,190 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2019, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2020; and 

7 (2) not more than $3,327,190 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2020, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2021. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

July 15, 2015

Hon. John Lamerson

Lamerson Law Firm

P.O. Box 241

Corpus Christi, TX 78403

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Jacqueline E. Lamerson

The Lamerson Law Firm

PO Box 241

Corpus Christi, TX 78403

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Michael E. Welborn

District Attorney

P. O. Box 1393

Sinton, Tx 78387-1393

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00100-CR

Tr.Ct.No. A-14-5190-CR

Style: Christopher Kenneth Mundine v. The State Of Texas

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief in the above cause was this 

day GRANTED by this Court. The time has been extended to Thursday, August 27, 

2015.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch
@conference{1207746,
  author = {Olga Ridzel and Wataru Yamane and Ishiaka Mansaray and John S. Villarrubia},
  title = {Model Validation for Scanning Electron Microscopy},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-04-27 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Proc. SPIE 12496, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control XXXVII, San Jose, CA, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936398},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2661103},
  language = {en},
}
Order entered March 1 7 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01441
- CV EVELYN DENSON, Appellant

V. L AND L LANDSCAPING, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cour t at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 19
- 04721
- B

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s March 12, 2020 motion for an extension of time to file her opening brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than April 20, 2020.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
@conference{10376,
  author = {Tam Duong and Allen Hefner and Karl Hobart},
  title = {Electro-Thermal Simulation and Design of a 60 A, 4.5 kV Half-Bridge Si IGBT/SiC JBS Hybrid Power Module},
  year = {2012},
  month = {2012-09-15},
  publisher = {Electro-Thermal Simulation and Design of a 60 A, 4.5 kV Half-Bridge Si IGBT/SiC JBS Hybrid Power Module, Raleigh, NC},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=911712},
  language = {en},
}
**EXHIBIT 31.2** **CHIEF    FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**     I, J. Clarke Gray, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of BKF Capital Group, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in    Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(f)    and    15d-15(f))    for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, 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 in    being prepared;     b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting,    or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosures    controls and procedures, as of the end of he period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’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 over    financial reporting; and     4. The registrant’s other certifying 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal controls 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 involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /s/  J.    CLARKE GRAY    J. Clarke Gray    Chief Financial Officer     Date: March 1, 2007
@article{1211176,
  author = {Vinh Nguyen and Jennifer Case},
  title = {Compensation of Electrical Current Drift in Human-Robot Collision},
  year = {2022},
  number = {123},
  month = {2022-11-05 04:11:00},
  publisher = {International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934518},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10369-y},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         146,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,088
<PP&E>                                       5,842,246
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,357,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,723,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,723,430
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,040,601
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,891,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                129,950
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    19.82


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         558,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,395,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,269,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,775,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          744,900
<BONDS>                                      1,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,775,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,736,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,203,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (25,700)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                388,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            388,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   388,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NO. 04-15-00183-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

RICHARD LARES,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

RESPONSE TO ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO STAY JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now Comes, Richard Lares, TDCJ #1592255, Appellant herein, in style and

cause number and files this Response to Order Denying Motion to Stay Judgment

and Conviction and in support shows the following:

Appellant, Lares, is Not being represent by counsel because the court

appointed cousel, Mr. Barry P. Hitchings, withdrew representation on June 12,2015

and put appellant back on Pro Se status. Said Counsel filed Anders Brief with

out interviewing appellant and without visiting appellant and denied appellant

an opporturnity to explain the circumstances of the case.

Appellant is requesting that his Motion to Stay Judgment and Conviction

be reconsidered since appellant is Pro Se.

Appellant did not submit hybrid Motion and is currently working on Appel

lant Brief on Appeal since appointed counsel withdrew.

Prayer

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant Prays that the Honorable Justices rec

onsider appellant's Motion to Stay Judgment and Conviction and Grant said Motion

since Appellant is without representation. Further Appellant Court Appointed

Counsel never mention that Appellant suffers from Mental Illness and Disorders

and abandoned his client witout personally interviewing him.
SO MOVED, SO PRAYED FOR.

Sincerely Submitted,

6£ Richard Lares, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

have read the pleadings and to the best of my knowlidge and belief, for

med after reasonable inquiry, that the instrument is not groungless, or broughtin bad faith or brought for the purpose of harrassment, unnecessary delay,jor

any other improper purpose. That on July 8, 2015 true and correct copy was

sent by U.S. Postal Mail to the Fourth Court of Appeals Clerk at Cadena-Reeves

Justice Center, 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200, San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037.

Respectfully,

Richard Lares, #1592255

Pack Unit

2400 Wallace Pack Rd.

Navasota, Texas 77868

"De Oppresso Liber"

U.S. Army Combat Veteran
lexk ftiutti Ccur]- 7-r-/r

\_ trei

M.

1',Ve

«~

4r>r

4,

t,
Exhibit 32




         Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

                                                                  March 30, 2004

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The  certification  set forth below is being  submitted in  connection  with the
annual report on Form 10-K of American Cable TV Investors 5, Ltd. (the "Report")
for the  purpose of  complying  with Rule  13a-14(b)  or Rule  15d-14(b)  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Brian L.  Roberts,  the  Principal  Executive  Officer,  Lawrence S. Smith,  the
Co-Chief Financial Officer and John R. Alchin, the Co-Chief Financial Officer of
American  Cable TV Investors 5, Ltd.,  each  certifies  that, to the best of his
knowledge:

     1.   the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of American Cable TV Investors 5, Ltd.



/s/ BRIAN L. ROBERTS
--------------------------------------
Name: Brian L. Roberts
Principal Executive Officer

/s/ LAWRENCE S. SMITH
--------------------------------------
Name: Lawrence S. Smith
Co-Chief Financial Officer

/s/ JOHN R. ALCHIN
--------------------------------------
Name: John R. Alchin
Co-Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES FORD SEALE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division

USDC No. 3:07-CR-9-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, WIENER,

BARKSDALE, GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS,

CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

By reason of an equally divided en banc court, the decision of the district

court on the sole issue of its denying dismissal of the indictment because of the

running of the statute of limitations is AFFIRMED.

 The appeal is RETURNED to the panel for decision of the other issues

raised on appeal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60732

2

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

For the reasons stated in the unanimous panel opinion previously filed in

this appeal, see United States v. Seale, 542 F.3d 1033 (5th Cir. 2008), I disagree

with those members of the en banc court who voted to affirm the district court’s

denial of Seale’s motion to dismiss the indictment on limitations grounds.

Both the Supreme Court and this circuit have held that when the

appellate court is evenly divided on an issue, the judgment of the lower court is

“affirmed.” See Sch. Bd. of Richmond, Va. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Va., 412 U.S.

92, 93 (1973) (per curiam); United States v. Kirk, 105 F.3d 997, 998 (5th Cir.

1997) (en banc); United States v. Ibarra, 965 F.2d 1354, 1357 (5th Cir. 1992) (en

banc). The use of the term “affirmed” is somewhat misleading. The Supreme

Court has described this nominal affirmance as follows:

In cases of appeal or writ of error in this court, the appellant or

plaintiff in error is always the moving party. It is affirmative action

which he asks. The question presented is, shall the judgment, or

decree, be reversed? If the judges are divided, the reversal cannot

be had, for no order can be made. The judgment of the court below,

therefore, stands in full force. It is, indeed, the settled practice in

such case to enter a judgment of affirmance; but this is only the

most convenient mode of expressing the fact that the cause is finally

disposed of in conformity with the action of the court below, and

that that court can proceed to enforce its judgment. The legal effect

would be the same if the appeal, or writ of error, were dismissed.

Durant v. Essex Co., 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 107, 112 (1868); see also Neil v. Biggers,

409 U.S. 188, 191-92 (1972); Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 263-64

(1960) (“[T]his case is being affirmed ex necessitate, by an equally divided

Court.”). In light of the forgoing, the use of the term “affirmed” should not be

construed to mean that the en banc court approves of the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663, 667 n.5

(5th Cir. 2003) (“Decisions by an equally divided en banc court have no value as

binding precedent.”).
S04A0276.

#### SPEEDWELL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH et al. v. CHATHAM COUNTY et al.

(599 SE2d 185)

Decided July 12, 2004

Reconsideration denied July 29, 2004.

*Stack & Associates, Donald D. J. Stack, Holly P. Cole,*for appellants.

Per curiam.

Because the Wal-Mart project that is at issue has been substantially completed, and because the appellants did not seek to stay the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief, which denial permitted the project to be built, the appellants are no longer entitled to relief stopping the project. *Brown v. Spann,*271 Ga. 495 (520 SE2d 909) (1999); *Jackson v. Bibb County School Dist.,*271 Ga. 18 (515 SE2d 151) (1999); *F.O. Thacker Contracting Co. v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.,*251 Ga. 860 (310 SE2d 701) (1984); *Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta,*236 Ga. 125 (223 SE2d 101) (1976). Moreover, because the issue whether Wal-Mart will attempt future development of other portions of its property is speculative and does not involve existing facts as to that development, the possibility of that future development does not save the case from being moot. See *Collins v. Lombard Corp.,*270 Ga. 120 (508 SE2d653) (1998). For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is dismissed as moot.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*235*R. Jonathan Hart, Emily E. Garrard, McCorkle, Pedigo & Johnson, Phillip R. McCorkle, David H. Johnson, Mathew M. McCoy, Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, Harold B. Yellin, Arnold C. Young,*for appellees.