alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A/d OB-I3~£>03B7-CR

n ,'l / „ IS U FILEDlN 7T> , . ^^TOFrRIMlNALAPPEALf XV TA* T€X&S 0?„^ Un^totJer jul 2pZeis $

Abel Acosta'Cierk ? RECBVPn

* Abe,^osta)Cte

The UHtfe/s&f WfrS Co/rx/itW,W fji<M£llD,'s?r,"t-+

a>Hrt ofJdmL-^CouAf* fats os+ht a****, <* 0<C

/A< <*se ms aff,>r„ ^/OA/ j^ lfi^y)/tr

TU preset S<,A£ ^ Uh discrtf.
yrr

\4f Otf J^hj 6yll0h/'lA/j Atfs; f^hti&A/er ui/4b wf' is**wed

Of *hht d-tc'iSt'oS •&-? -hh* Court &fAf/?m/s [*/ affimi*y

hfs CM* "-stt/.&tf i^if '• 5lA/^e -tUfriw^ Pe.WoA'ir

htis b-e^z #lL'i'&/>npff/vJ -H> 44 iW /*$$/rtffe-5eflst4f~/dy IW

h*£ *tA/fa/nee/ fc-hi+lot/ir +h*f h* i^MrsJof refrzseyi hi* w

+h* h+iHs for V/scrtff^ Uti/f^M

u/ktrt&r^fitfi+favfrtte this courtir*J<rttS

+g y <ir jW m* <1 her 2^^£lTL flfifro^Mafelo I^TsT^

^ififf^i^ffoSe

/£.«

X #<f JL
H. Res. 761 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 17, 2019. 

Resolved, That the Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader, may designate individuals to be admitted to the 

Hall of the House and the rooms leading thereto in order to 

obtain film footage of the House in session for inclusion in 

the orientation film to be shown to visitors at the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1770 

LT Case No. 2020-DR-2196

_____________________________

ADEL ABDALLA, 

Appellant,

v.

MAHA ABDALLA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County. 

Michael J. Rudisill, Judge. 

Gary S. Israel, of Gary Israel, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Brandon M. Tyson, of Tyson Law Firm, LLC, Winter Park, for 

Appellee.

March 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00288-CV

Eduardo BENAVIDES,

Appellant

v.

Julia BENNETT,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-16084

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s request to provide him with a free copy of the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED. The clerk of this court is directed to copy the reporter’s record and mail the copy to 

appellant at the address he has provided.

Appellant’s brief is due September 4, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atwood Minerals and Mining Corp., a
Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Greg Goldberg., Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002:





1.
            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 the
      Company.





Greg
Goldberg


Greg
Goldberg


President


(Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer)




October
14, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-07-200-CR

OLGA A. OVIEDO	          					       APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF DENTON COUNTY

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “Appellant’s Withdrawal Of Notice Of Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 											 														

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 19, 2007
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - February 2004 

Benefit payments February 2004 February 2003 

Total $745,782,000 $733,541,000 

Retired employees 477,844,000 466,228,000 

Regular Retirement Spouses and divorced spouses 

and Survivor Benefits Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 

Other survivors 

89,510,000 88,762,000 

156,559,000 156,919,000 

21,869,000 21,632,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 619,100 ......... 2,900 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 290,300 $1,633 1,100 $2,213 ......... 

Age 207,600 1,595 2 500 2 2,629 3 $1,196 

Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 35,800 1,458 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 46,900 1,935 400 2,252 

Spouses and divorced spouses 145,000 613 800 761 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 155,500 1,003 800 1,322 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,000 1,290 4/ 1,238 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,900 666 100 782 

Children 12,400 763 4/ 1,072 

Other survivors 100 681 ......... ......... ......... .........

5/ / 

606 632 

875 754 

654 683 

......... 

863 940 

451 331 

......... 

$924 

......... 

Being Paid Awarded 

Monthly benefits February 2004 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

Benefit payments 

February February 

2004 2003 Number Average 

$5,344,000 $6,061,000 127,600 $42 500 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged34); about 300 

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

February 2004 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 5,200 $272 

Sickness 6,400 273 

Unemployment 

Sickness 4,127,000 4,209,000 

$10,114,000 

4,458,000 5,906,000 

Total $8,585,000 

Benefit payments 

February 2004 February 2003 

$481 

475 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

Per 

full week 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVEOFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Quentin T. Kelly certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe report of WorldWater & Solar Technologies Corp. (FormerlyWorldWater & Power Corp.)on Form 10-K for the annual period endedDecember 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operation ofWorldWater & Solar Technologies Corp. (Formerly WorldWater &Power Corp.).

 
|   | By:    | /s/  Quentin T. Kelly |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | NAME:  | Quentin T. Kelly                |
|   | Title: | *Principal  Executive Officer*  |

 

Dated: March 27, 2008

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Kpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 

----
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VII – Additional Communications About Service and Compensation Reports

Chapter 4: Form Letter GL-132, Annuitant Return to Service

1

Why is Form GL-132 Sent?

Form Letter GL-132 is designed to determine if service months, reported after an annuitant's 

annuity beginning date, are properly credited. An annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act 

(RRA) is not payable for any month in which an employee works or otherwise earns creditable 

service from an employer covered under the RRA. If service is reported for a month that is after 

the month an employee was awarded an annuity under the RRA, a Form Letter GL-132 will be 

sent to clarify the service.

It is important that the responses to GL-132 letters are properly completed. The Railroad 

Retirement Board will take action based on your response. This action may result in recovery of 

benefits paid to your employee.

Completing Form Letter GL-132

To complete Form Letter GL-132, first refer to the service month detail in Part I. A "1" indicates 

a reported service month and a "0" indicates that no service month was reported. Review the 

service month information for accuracy. Go to Part II and check the applicable response.

Check the first response if the service month detail is incorrect. The RRB will remove the service 

month(s) from the annuitant's record. You do not need to file Form BA-4, "Report of Creditable 

Compensation Adjustments".

Check the second response if the service month detail is correct and provide an explanation as to 

why the employee is entitled to the service month(s). Keep in mind that service is always 

creditable when the service is performed, not when the payment is made and taxed. Service 

should never be reported for a month after the relinquishment of the employment relationship.

If neither of the two responses applies, call: 

If neither of the two responses applies, contact:

Quality Reporting Service Center

Railroad Retirement Board

844 North Rush Street, 7th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

Phone:(312) 751-4992

Fax: (312) 751-7123

Email:QRSC@rrb.gov
#### Amador Caballero, Respondent, v Fev Taxi Corp. et al., Appellants.

[852 NYS2d 776]

Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmed reports of the neurologist and orthopedist who examined plaintiff failed to set forth the objective tests performed to support their claims that there was no limitation of range of motion, and did not address the objective findings of plaintiffs MRIs showing, inter alia, herniated and bulging discs *(see Nix v Yang Gao*Xiang, 19 AD3d 227 [2005]). Defendants’ failure to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case renders it unnecessary *388to consider plaintiffs opposition to the motion *(see Offman v Singh,*27 AD3d 284 [2006]). Concur-Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dean Pacquette, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 669]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered June 11, 2008, as amended March 6, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence was overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. Among other things, the evidence included the recovery of prerecorded buy money from defendant, notwithstanding defendant’s implausible explanation for that fact.

The court properly determined that an identification made by an officer other than the purchasing undercover officer was confirmatory and thus did not require CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice *(see People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921 [1989]). The requirements of a police confirmatory identification were met, in that the officer at issue carefully observed defendant at close range throughout the drug transaction and made a prompt identification as part of a planned procedure *(see People v Houston,*47 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 841 [2008]; *compare People v Boyer,*6 NY3d 427 [2006]). The officer also transmitted a detailed and accurate description of defendant. In any event, any error was harmless because this officer’s identification of defendant was cumulative to that of the undercover officer, and it added little to the People’s otherwise overwhelming case *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ICO Global
Communications (Holdings) Limited (Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), J. Timothy Bryan, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company (principal executive officer) and Michael P. Corkery, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      |  |  |  |                                                                                               
|----------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ J. TIMOTHY BRYAN                                  |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL P. CORKERY                                                                        
|J. Timothy Bryan                                      |  |  |  | Michael P. Corkery                                                                            
|Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
|August 8, 2008                                        |  |  |  | August 8, 2008                                                                                

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to ICO Global Communications
(Holdings) Limited and will be retained by ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 383 

Expressing support for recognizing the week of May 13 through May 19, 

2019, as ‘‘National Police Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Mr. GUEST (for himself and Mr. KING of New York) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for recognizing the week of May 13 

through May 19, 2019, as ‘‘National Police Week’’. 

Whereas President John F. Kennedy first designated May 

15, 1963, as Peace Officers Memorial Day; 

Whereas it is important to celebrate the estimated 850,000 

law enforcement members serving and protecting our 

country; 

Whereas members of law enforcement create strong security 

for communities across the United States, providing support at all hours of the day and night; 

Whereas members of law enforcement perform a wide range 

of responsibilities that varies from stabilizing hostile situations to responding to dangerous and unforgiving natural disasters; 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 383 IH 

Whereas law enforcement officers often put themselves in 

harm’s way for others; 

Whereas there have been times of tragedy when members of 

law enforcement have sacrificed their lives in the line of 

duty; and 

Whereas this level of dedication to communities across the 

United States should be recognized and valued: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) acknowledges and honors members of law 

3 enforcement for their service to the United States; 

4 (2) supports the mission of law enforcement 

5 agencies to keep our communities safe; and 

6 (3) celebrates the officers and agents who make 

7 a positive difference in our country. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
@article{1209186,
  author = {Jason Killgore and Thomas Kolibaba and Benjamin Caplins and Callie Higgins and Jake Rezac},
  title = {A Data-Driven Approach to Complex Voxel Predictions in Grayscale Digital Light Processing Additive Manufacturing Using U-nets and Generative Adversarial Networks},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-06 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Small},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936540},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202301987},
  language = {en},
}
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

May 11, 2010 

ERRATA 

Appeal No. 2009-1391 

PATENT RIGHTS v. VIDEO GAMING 

Decided: May 10, 2010 

Precedential Opinion 

Please make the following change: 

Page 12, line 21, change “find that this contention strains” to --consider this contention 

to strain--.
#### Yolanda Abarca Ramos, Respondent, v Lester Bartis et al., Appellants.

[977 NYS2d 315]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered August 28, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summaxy judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging negligence, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault (see *Thoma v Ronai,*82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; *Pollack v Margolin,*84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]), since there can be xnore than one proximate cause of an accident (see *Pollack v Margolin,*84 AD3d at 1342). Where the movant has established his or her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party may defeat the motion for summary judgment by submitting sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the moving party’s comparative fault *(see Lu Yuan Yang v Howsal Cab Corp.,*106 AD3d 1055 [2013]).

In support of her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she entered the crosswalk at the subject intersection after exercising reasonable care and was walking within the crosswalk with the signal in her favor, and that the defendant driver, Lester Bartis, was negligent in failing to yield the right of way *(see Moreira v M.K. Travel & Transp., Inc.,*106 AD3d 965 [2013]; *Buchinger v Jazz Leasing Corp.,*95 AD3d 1053 [2012]; *Arazashvilli v Executive Fleet Mgt., Corp.,*90 AD3d 682 [2011]; *Qamar v Kanarek,*82 AD3d 860 [2011]; *cf. Thoma v Ronai,*82 NY2d at 737; *Day v MTA Bus Co.,*94 AD3d 940 [2012]). The defendants’ argument concerning the inadmissibility of the plaintiff’s English-language affidavit, which was submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion, while correct, does not change the outcome of this appeal. The order appealed from does not indicate that the Supreme Court relied on the plaintiff’s inadmissible English-language affidavit in determinating that the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Reyes v Arco Wentworth Mgt. Corp.,*
      *80583 AD3d 47 [2011]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident.

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.