alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006294EN.01001802.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-49/06) (1)

1

(Failure of member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/37/EC - Registration documents for vehicles - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 294/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11. 03. 2006.

1

---
### [§1590. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XVI, §1633(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2751]

Section, added Pub. L. 99–569, title V, §504(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3198; amended Pub. L. 100–178, title VI, §602(b), Dec. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 1016; Pub. L. 101–193, title V, §503(a), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1708; Pub. L. 102–496, title IV, §402(a), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3184; Pub. L. 103–35, title II, §201(g)(2), May 31, 1993, 107 Stat. 100, related to management of civilian intelligence personnel of the military departments. See sections 1601 to 1603, 1606, and 1609 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1635 of Pub. L. 104–201, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 1593 of this title.
# C_2006301EN.01001701.xml

| 12.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4425 — Merril Lynch/Irish Life & Permanent)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 301/11)

On 30 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4425. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4425. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALADIN RUSHDAN, AKA Robert

Woods, AKA Robert Stanley Woods,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

R. GEAR; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 17035

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 01017

- BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Saladin Rushdan, AKA Robert Woods, AKA Robert Stanley Woods, a

California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 17035

magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v.

Meyer

, 755 F.3d 866, 867

- 68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Rushdan consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then sc reened and dismissed Rushdan ’s action

before the named defendant had been served

. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A,

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . Because all parties, including unserved defendants, m ust

consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v.

King

, 875 F.3d 500 , 503

- 04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order

and remand for further proceedings.

Rushdan’s request for appointment of counsel

, set forth in his opening brief

,

is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****West Virginia�s forests**
 
2008 | 2013
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.80:F 76/W 48/
Item Number:0083-B-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001048539
 
March 12, 2018
| PUBLIC SUBMISSION | **As of:**February 20, 2013**Received:**February 11, 2013**Status:**Pending_Post**Category:**Institution of Higher Education**Tracking No.**1jx-83mn-9ken**Comments Due:**February 19, 2013**Submission Type:**Web |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**Docket:**ED-2012-ICCD-0070School Attendance Boundary Survey (SABS) 2013 and 2015

**Comment On:**ED-2012-ICCD-0070-0001Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Attendance Boundary Survey (SABS) 2013 and 2015

**Document:**ED-2012-ICCD-0070-DRAFT-0006Comment on FR Doc # N/A

----

## Submitter Information

----

## General Comment

I am a GIS user and an educational researcher who works with school attendance boundaries. It is a great idea for IES to become a clearinghouse for school zone data so long as it makes the data useable to a wide-range of constituents (especially the districts that provide the data). Will the project represent the original information provided by districts or will it change the data? I worry that the project will lose boundaries or not pay attention to some of the complexities of this type of geography. And the result will be that the project will lose the cooperation of school agencies.
#### In the Matter of Herbert Burgess, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 312]

*949Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit unauthorized possession of a controlled substance and smuggling after he enclosed a quantity of heroin in separate letters mailed to the Governor and the United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration in an alleged effort to expose a drug-selling operation within the correctional facility involving inmates and correction officers. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report and petitioner’s acknowledgment that he wrote the letters and enclosed the heroin, together with the testimony of the correction officer who investigated the incident and authored the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Wright v Goord,*19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 711 [2005]; *Matter of Benton v Couture,*269 AD2d 642, 643 [2000]), regardless of petitioner’s motivation in sending the letters. Furthermore, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was precluded from presiding at the disciplinary hearing because he was named by petitioner as a defendant in a pending federal lawsuit *(see Matter of Chavis v Goord,*8 AD3d 786, 787-788 [2004]; *Matter of Grant v Senkowski,*146 AD2d 948, 949-950 [1989]; *see also*7 NYCRR 254.1). In any event, the record establishes that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the evidence presented, not from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Santana v Selsky,*23 AD3d 722, 723 [2005]; *Matter of Di Rose v Coombe,*233 AD2d 799, 801 [1996]).

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avalon HoldingsCorporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ted Wesolowski, Chief Executive Officer of Avalon Holdings Corporation, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (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 Avalon Holdings Corporation. |

| /s/ TED WESOLOWSKI      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
| Ted Wesolowski          |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| August 13, 2003         |   |

24
### §8896. Reconsideration of stay

(a) A claimant or party who considers himself adversely affected by a stay under this chapter may serve a written notice on the Secretary of the Navy at Washington, D.C., requesting him to reconsider the stay previously issued and to issue a new certificate. The notice shall identify the stay by means of an attached copy of the certificate of the Secretary or a sufficient description of the stay. The notice may not contain any recital of the facts or circumstances involved.

(b) Within ten days after receiving notice under this section, the Secretary or his designee shall hold a secret meeting at which the claimant or party, or his representative, may present any facts and arguments he thinks material.

(c) Within ten days after a hearing under this section, the Secretary shall file with the court that ordered the stay a new certificate stating whether the stay is then to be terminated or for what period the stay is to continue in effect. If the Secretary fails to file a new certificate, the court, upon application by the claimant or party, shall issue an order directing the Secretary to file a new certificate within a specified time.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 485, §7726; renumbered §8896, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(10), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7726(a) | 46 U.S.C. 794 (2d, 3d, and 4th sentences). | July 3, 1944, ch. 399, §4 (2d, 3d, and 4th sentences), 58 Stat. 724. |
| 7726(b) | 46 U.S.C. 794 (5th sentence). | July 3, 1944, ch. 399, §4 (5th sentence), 58 Stat. 724. |
| 7726(c) | 46 U.S.C. 794 (6th and 7th sentences). | July 3, 1944, ch. 399, §4 (6th and 7th sentences), 58 Stat. 724. |

In subsection (a) the words "then in effect", "upon which the stay is based", and "for its identification" are omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (b) the words "with respect to whether or not a stay should be issued or maintained" are omitted as surplusage. The words "his designee" are substituted for the words "some official designated by him" for brevity.

In subsection (c) the words "that ordered the stay" are substituted for the words "in which said stay is pending or the court in which the proceeding stayed was instituted" for brevity and clarity.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7726 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
Exhibit 10.6


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE


STANLEY,
INC.


2006
OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


Pursuant to the powers
reserved by the Board of Directors of Stanley, Inc. under this Section 7(a) of
the Stanley, Inc. 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, (the “2006
Plan”), the 2006 Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date
hereof:


 


FIRST AND
ONLY CHANGE


 


Section 2 of the
2006 Plan is amended to include the following:


 


“Award Agreement” means any
written agreement, contract or other instrument or document, including any
document delivered electronically or posted on the Company’s intranet,
evidencing any Award, which may, but need not, require execution or
acknowledgment by a Participant.


 


The Plan, as amended
above, is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.
Exhibit 32


  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 Micro Interconnect Technology
 Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
 (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
 Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
 that:

(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.


/s/ Kevin R. Keating
Kevin R. Keating
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2004
§ 514.7 What should a gaming operation do if it changes its fiscal year or ceases operations? ( a ) If a gaming operation changes its fiscal year, it shall notify the Commission of the change within thirty (30) days. The Commission may request that the gaming operation prepare and submit to the Commission fees and statements for the period from the end of the previous fiscal year to the beginning of the new fiscal year. The submission must be sent to the Commission within ninety (90) days of its request.
( b ) If a gaming operation ceases operations, it shall notify the Commission within (30) days. The Commission may request that the gaming operation, using the most recent rates of fees adopted by the Commission, prepare and submit to the Commission fees and statements for the period from the end of the most recent quarter for which fees have been paid to the date operations ceased. The submission must be sent to the Commission within (90) days of its request.
Paul Applewhite

Applewhite Aero

PO Box 46955

Seattle, WA 98146

17 September 2015

Subject: Exemption from 14 CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b): Extension and Amendment

Applewhite Aero has obtained a Special Airworthiness Certificate for a small UAV, the Invenio, in 2013 

and need to extend the exemptions from regulations 14 CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b). 

Additionally, Applewhite Aero is requesting an amendment to the exemptions for an additional aircraftthe Milo, for which an experimental airworthiness certificate is in process. As these aircraft are small 

and incapable of carrying a human, the aircrafts are not suitable for carrying the flight manual, or 

displaying registrations and airworthiness certificates. These items will be maintained at the ground 

station with the pilot in command of the UAV.

Applewhite Aero believes the approval of our extension and amendment to exemption from 14 CFR 

91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b) for both aircraft is in the public interest as it supports commerce in the 

development and marketing of UAV technology. It also supports safe and appropriate procedures for 

integrating UAV technology into the NAS. By maintaining the documents required by 91.9 and 91.203 at 

the ground control station with the pilot in command, the exemption provides an equivalent level of 

safety to the original intent of the regulations.

To summarize, Applewhite Aero is requesting an extension and amendment exemption to 14 CFR 

91.203 (a) and (b) and 14 CFR 91.9 (b) to support the operation of small unmanned aircraft registered 

and certificated by the FAA to operate within the limitations identified by the FAA in the national 

airspace.

Respectfully,

Paul G. Applewhite

Applewhite Aero
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Superior Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended on June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and to which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, C. Stanley Bailey, the principal executive officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.



Date: August 8, 2003

|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|/s/ C. Stanley Bailey                                              
|                                                                   
|C. Stanley Bailey Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Superior Financial Corp. and will be retained by Superior Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Bullock, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 Graham Packaging Holdings
Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 2, 2009
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/ David W. Bullock   
|                       |  | David W. Bullock       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of The Knot, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Richard Szefc, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (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.
|

| | /s/ Richard Szefc      
| | -----------------------
| | Richard Szefc          
| | Chief Financial Officer



Date: May 9, 2007

---