alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
McNair Paper Number 41, Radical Responses to Radical Regimes:  Evaluating Preemptive Counter-Proliferation, May 1995 
**ContentsSummary
Policy Shift: The Defense Counter-Proliferation Initiative
The Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Questions Demanding an Answer:  Responding to Radical Proliferators
History's Lessons for Preemptive Counter-Proliferation Decisions
Preventing Nazi A-Bombs
Bombardment of Tokyo's Nuclear Labs
Iran Attacks an Iraqi Nuclear Reactor
Israel's Osirak Attack
India Thwarts Israeli Destruction of Pakistan's "Islamic Bomb"
Iraq Destroys Iran's Bushehr Reactor
Lessons of the Gulf War 
The Missile Crisis:  An Air Strike Deferred
Dealing With A Potential "Nuclear Hitler" 
The Proliferation Challenge of North Korea
Reviewing Radical Responses to Radical Regimes
Notes
**| Return to Top | 
*Return to NDU Homepage *INSS Homepage *What's New*******
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Nina B. Varley,*pro se, in support of the motion.

Submitted May 2

decided June 25, 1974

The defendant’s “Motion to Reopen and Vacate Judgment and for a New Trial Based upon Newly Discovered Evidence, Bribery, False Testimony, Incomplete Testimony Due to Denial of Due Process and Denial of Due Process” in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
#### § 291.15 How long do Class III gaming procedures remain in effect?

Class III gaming procedures remain in effect for the duration specified in the procedures or until amended pursuant to § 291.14.
# C_2006331EN.01001101.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Eurodental Sàrl

(Case C-240/05) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) - Right to deduct - Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses - Intra-Community transactions relating to transactions which are exempt within the Member State - Effect of the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 28(3)(a) in conjunction with point 2 of annex E - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Partial harmonisation of VAT)

(2006/C 331/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel (Luxembourg)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines

Applicant:

Defendant: Eurodental Sàrl

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Deductibility of VAT charged on goods used for certain intra-Community transactions where these transactions are exempt if carried out within the territory of the country — Making and repairing of dental prostheses

Operative part of the judgment

A transaction which is exempted from value added tax within the territory of a Member State under Article 13A(1)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers and Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax, does not give rise to the right to deduct input value added tax pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) of that directive, even when it is an intra-Community transaction, and regardless of the system of value added tax applicable in the Member State of destination.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

1

---
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Leadership 

# In This Section

                      -  Who We Are 
                      -  PHMSA Guidance 
                      -  Organization 
                      -  Leadership 
                      -  PHMSA FAQs 
                      -  Careers 
                      -  Working with PHMSA 

## Contact Us

Hazardous Materials Information Center
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Phone:**202-366-4488****Alt Phone:**800-467-4922****Fax:**202-366-5713**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety

## William S. Schoonover

William S. "Bill" Schoonover is the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, within the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in Washington, DC and serves as the senior career official for hazardous materials safety oversight. Previously, Bill served as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, leading PHMSA's comprehensive oversight program including enforcement, special investigations, outreach and engagement, investigator training through PHMSA's five regional offices, and coordination of activities with modal partners.

Bill has over 35 years of experience in the transportation industry and brings a wealth of transportation experience having worked in several modes. He began his career in 1980 with the United States Coast Guard. In addition to serving on the ground floor of the Coast Guard's packaged hazardous materials transportation safety oversight program, he worked in search and rescue, maritime safety and security, law enforcement, and as a federal on-scene coordinator's representative. Mr. Schoonover also served with the Coast Guard Reserve from his active duty departure until retiring in 2003. Mr. Schoonover also worked in the transportation industry for a short time preparing, offering, and transporting hazardous waste.

Prior to coming to PHMSA, Bill served with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for more than 20 years. He served in several progressive positions from a field inspector to his most recent position as Staff Director of FRA's Hazardous Materials Division, within the Office of Railroad Safety. As the chief advisor to the agency on railroad hazardous materials safety issues he established rail hazardous materials safety policy and provided guidance to a field inspection staff enforcing the hazardous materials transportation regulations in the rail environment. He also oversaw the agency’s industrial hygiene program and provided temporarily leadership to the agency's Motive Power and Equipment program. Bill has been recognized numerous times for his solution-oriented approach to problem solving and his sustainable program development.

He holds a B.S. in business management.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2012-3 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment
of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
### **CHAPTER 47—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BANKING**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Sec.
4701.
Findings and purposes.
4702.
Definitions.
4703.
Establishment of national Fund for community development banking.
4703a.
Capital investments for neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by the COVID–19 pandemic.
4704.
Applications for assistance.
4705.
Community partnerships.
4706.
Selection of institutions.
4707.
Assistance provided by Fund.
4708.
Training.
4709.
Encouragement of private entities.
4710.
Collection and compilation of information.
4711.
Investment of receipts and proceeds.
4712.
Capitalization assistance to enhance liquidity.
4713.
Incentives for depository institution participation.
4713a.
Guarantees for bonds and notes issued for community or economic development purposes.
4714.
Recordkeeping.
4715.
Special provisions with respect to institutions that are supervised by Federal banking agencies.
4716.
Studies and reports; examination and audit.
4717.
Enforcement.
4718.
Authorization of appropriations.
4719.
Grants to establish loan-loss reserve funds.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ENHANCEMENT

4741.
Findings and purposes.
4742.
Definitions.
4743.
Approving States for participation.
4744.
Participation agreements.
4745.
Terms of participation agreements.
4746.
Reports.
4747.
Reimbursement by Fund.
4748.
Reimbursement to Fund.
4749.
Regulations.
4750.
Authorization of appropriations.
Exhibit
21.01

SUBSIDIARIES

|                                      |  |                         
|------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|NAME
  OF THE SUBSIDIARY              |  | STATE
  OF INCORPORATION
|                                      |  |                         
|Daniel M. Friedman & Associates, Inc. |  | New
  York              
|Diva Acquisition Corp.                |  | Delaware                
|Adesso-Madden, Inc.                   |  | New
  York              
|Madden Direct, Inc.                   |  | Delaware                
|Steven Madden Construction Corp.      |  | Delaware                
|Steven Madden Retail, Inc.            |  | Delaware                
|Shoe Biz, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                
|Stevies, Inc.                         |  | Delaware                
|Unionbay Mens Footwear, Inc.         |  | Delaware                

---
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 Atlantica, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Alan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Shelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:November 9, 2010By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Date:November 9, 2010By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Guthrie, Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 (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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ David Guthrie
David Guthrie, Principal Executive Officer

Date: May 16, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### STATE v. BURNETTE

No. 525P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 122

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 18 January 1990.
# C_2007020EN.01003503.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/35

---

Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)

(Case T-389/06)

(2007/C 20/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 September 2006 in Case R 355/2006-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 September 2006 in Case R 355/2006-1;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a pallet consisting of an elongated rectangular platform or base and an equally elongated flange, ornamented with triangle holes, which are both at a 90 degree angle to each other, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 et 42 — application No 4 073 748

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark is sufficiently distinctive to be registered.

Pleas in law:

---
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Civil Rights 

# In This Section

                      -  Employee Services                          -  Overview 
                        -  Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 
                        -  Minority Serving Institutions Program 
                        -  No FEAR Act 
                        -  Special Emphasis Programs 
                      -  Public Services                          -  Overview 
                        -  Small Business Utilization in Federal Projects 
                        -  Environmental Justice 
                        -  Limited English Proficiency 
                      -  Grant Recipient Information 
                      -  PHMSA Office of Civil Rights 

# EO 13985

EO 13985 Racial Equity.pdf (224.37 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
§ 81.44 What documents are sent to the Authorizing Official? The Chair of the Secretarial Election Board must transmit all documents pertaining to the Secretarial election to the Authorizing Official, including: ( a ) The original text of the material voted on;
( b ) The Eligible Voters List;
( c ) The Registered Voters List;
( d ) The Secretarial Election Notice Packet;
( e ) Any challenges to the Secretarial election results; and
( f ) The Certificate of Results of Election.
#### § 700.475 Reports.

Reports shall be furnished by any recipient of financial assistance under this subpart, in such manner as may be required by the Commission.
# C_2006224EN.01005401.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/54

---

(2006/C 224/115)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

Past publications

OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
#### In the Matter of Samuel E. Fairfield, Appellant, to Confirm and Approve the Express Agreement for His Retainer Fee, as Counsel, by William M. Campbell, Respondent, to Secure the Estate of Mary J. Oliver, Deceased, Intestate, to the Custody and Control of Said William M. Campbell, as He Is Administrator Thereof and Committee of the Person and Property of Hattie A. Campbell, His Mother, an Incompetent Person, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
| _~

i

|
oe : - : xz
i: C
PR.
a
cos “ a
| = ff 3

72°00"
\ —— 42°00"

| | | '

lAd
WL

4

we aeounes” yy, hi OO gh : f y y “3 oO 2 CS i. JX Y, ne, : . |

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX

a ; DEPTH - ING SHEETS
ee me & A DIENTS - . wes T “nn a in .
x. : * ee BAT HYMETRIC C ONTOUR | NTE RVAL. 10 MET E R 5 ° BINGHAMTON | ALBANY Fi
a h9es2 wee max Joon - we dertn WITH SUPPLE MENTA RY 2 MET E R CONTOURS SCRANTON iy :
nm a toni ll DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER ne Aer | B® 4
We H6i24a As ep on -
coe fae C j | i
Toe tate ss Hi HARTECRD. TNKI 3-4 4
ae |_]E #56 i237 Ase - L ~ * i
EXHIBIT 10.1.1


 


SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO ONCOGENEX VOTING AGREEMENTS


 


Each
of the individuals identified below is party to a voting agreement with Sonus
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the form filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Sonus’
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 30, 2008:


 


Ventures West 7 Limited Partnership


Ventures West 7 U.S. Limited Partnership


H.I.G. Horizon Corp.


Working Opportunity Fund (EVCC) Ltd.


BDC Capital Inc.


Business Development Bank of Canada


Milestone Medica Corporation


Sherry Tryssenaar


Vancouver Prostate Research Foundation


Quest/BC Advantage Funds


WHI Morula Fund, LLC


Scott Cormack


Martin Gleave


603356 B.C. Ltd.


Steve Anderson


Cindy Jacobs


Neil Clendeninn


Tom Bailey
### Part G—Regulatory Improvements
#### STATE v. GARDNER

No. 10P90

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 514

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 March 1990.
§ 39.412 What sanctions apply for failure to comply with this subpart? ( a ) The employer of a responsible administrative official must take appropriate personnel action if the official: ( 1 ) Submits false or fraudulent ISEP-related counts;
( 2 ) Submits willfully inaccurate counts of student participation in weighted program areas; or
( 3 ) Certifies or verifies submissions described in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
( b ) Unless prohibited by law, the employer must report: ( 1 ) Notice of final Federal personnel action to the tribal governing body and tribal school board; and
( 2 ) Notice of final tribal or school board personnel action to the Director of OIEP.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4848

ROGER STROMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CR-02-86-CMC)

Submitted: April 17, 2003

Decided: April 23, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Roger Stroman pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (2000), and brandishing a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (2000). Stroman was sentenced to 294 months

incarceration, 5 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a special assessment and restitution. Stroman’s attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting

two claims. 

First, Stroman asserts the district court erred in conducting his plea

colloquy. Because Stroman did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea

in the district court, we review this claim for plain error. United States

v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002). This claim is meritless.

The district court did not err in conducting Stroman’s plea colloquy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

Second, Stroman asserts the district court erred in calculating his

sentence, because it included in his criminal history a conviction that

was more than fifteen years old. A sentencing court’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, while its legal interpretation of

the sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Bartley, 230 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 2000). This claim is meritless. Stroman’s parole for this offense had been revoked twice within the last

fifteen years, and it was therefore properly included in his criminal

history. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2 (2000). 

Accordingly, we affirm Stroman’s conviction and sentence. In

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this

case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the

client requests such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such

a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre2 UNITED STATES v. STROMAN
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. STROMAN 3