alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 97.17 Mandatory restraints to be used while transporting violent prisoners.

Companies covered under this part must, at a minimum, require that violent prisoners be transported wearing handcuffs, leg irons, and waist chains unless the use of all three restraints would create a serious health risk to the prisoner, or extenuating circumstances (such as pregnancy or physical disability) make the use of all three restraints impracticable.
CS 317297-K 10/02/2020

Reba neza ko gapfutse amazuru n’umunwa kugira ngo ufashe kurinda abandi. 

Ushobora kuba waranduye ariko ntugaragaze ibimenyetso.

Siga intera ya metero 2 hagati yawe n’abandi bantu.

Kandi wambare agapfukamunwa

Imenyereze gusiga intera hagati yawe n’abandi

Fasha kwirinda no kurinda abandi COVID-19
§ 42.213 Full hearing. ( a ) At any time after notification of noncompliance under § 42.208, but before the conclusion of the 120-day suspension period referred to in § 42.210, a State government or unit of general local government may request a hearing on the record in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554 in order to contest the findings of determination of noncompliance made under § 42.208. The Office shall initiate the hearing within 60 days of request.
( b ) Within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, or, in the absence of a hearing, at the conclusion of the 120-day period referred to in § 42.210, the Director of OJARS shall make a finding of compliance or noncompliance. ( 1 ) If the Director makes a finding of noncompliance, the Director shall: ( i ) Notify the Attorney General in order that the Attorney General may institute a civil action under section 815(c)(3) of the JSIA;
( ii ) Cause to have terminated the payment of funds under the JSIA and/or the Juvenile Justice Act; and
( iii ) If appropriate, seek repayment of funds.
( 2 ) If the Director makes a finding of compliance, payment of the suspended funds and reconsideration of applications shall resume.
File Nos.  333-145866
                                                                      811-05618
================================================================================

                                 UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                                    FORM N-4

REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933                   ( )
            Pre-Effective Amendment No.                                   ( )
            Post-Effective Amendment No. 12                               (X)

REGISTRATION  STATEMENT UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940          ( )
            Amendment  No. 275                                            (X)

                      (Check appropriate box or boxes.)

     ALLIANZ LIFE VARIABLE ACCOUNT B
     ------------------------------------
        (Exact Name of Registrant)

     ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
     ----------------------------------------------------
        (Name of Depositor)

     5701 Golden Hills Drive, Minneapolis, MN                         55416
     -------------------------------------------                     --------
     (Address of Depositor's Principal Executive Offices)           (Zip Code)

Depositor's Telephone Number, including Area Code               (763)  765-2913

     Name and Address of Agent for Service
     -------------------------------------
          Stewart D. Gregg, Senior Securities Counsel
          Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
          5701 Golden Hills Drive
          Minneapolis,  MN    55416
          (763) 765-2913

IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS FILING WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE
BOX):

____ immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485

__X_ on October 16, 2009 pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485

____ 60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 485

____ on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 485

IF APPROPRIATE, CHECK THE FOLLOWING:

__X_ this post-effective amendment designates a new effective date for a
     previously filed post-effective amendment.

APPROXIMATE DATE OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OFFERING:
October 16, 2009

TITLES OF SECURITIES BEING REGISTERED:
Individual Flexible Purchase Payment Variable Deferred Annuity Contracts

PARTS A, B and C WERE FILED IN REGISTRANT'S POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO
FORM N-4 On July 21, 2009 AND ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
#### § 522.15 No good time credits for inmates serving only civil contempt commitments.

While serving only the civil contempt commitment, an inmate is not entitled to good time sentence credit.
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2235

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Fernando Rios-Serna, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 2006 Filed: January 11, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Fernando Rios-Serna pleaded guilty to c onspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range to 108 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief unde r Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons discussed below, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.-2- Counsel argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonable under the standard of review announced in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). However, a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is presumptivel y reasonable, and we conclude that Rios-Serna ha s not satisfied his burden to rebut that presumption of reasonableness. SeeUnited States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 2005 WL 3067440 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2005) (No. 05-7506). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1998 and the related
Consolidated Statements of Income and Cash Flows for the twelve months
ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      195,556
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     20,678
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          35,700
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        30,576
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  27,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,824
<COMMON>                                        17,711
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       71,536
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             17,508
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 106,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,440
<PREFERRED>                                     12,645
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            88,500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               7,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      7,696
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  82,088
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  309,824
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      184,304
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           (1,367)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     180,199
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     178,832
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          5,472
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (473)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   4,999
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         7,876
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,877)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,296
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (4,173)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         5,036
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        6,991
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           9,939
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.80)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 16.44 Classified information.

In processing a Privacy Act request for access, a Privacy Act request for amendment or correction, or a Privacy Act request for accounting, in which information is classified under any applicable Executive order concerning the classification of records, to the extent the requester lacks the appropriate security clearance and fails otherwise to meet all requirements to access the classified record or information, the originating component shall review the information in the record to determine whether it should remain classified. Information determined to no longer require classification shall be de-classified and the record evaluated for an appropriate release to the requester, subject to any applicable exemptions or exceptions. On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the official responsible for adjudicating the appeal shall take appropriate action to ensure compliance with part 17 of this title.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER J. HELFRICH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE NEVADA BAR; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-16376

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01399-APGPAL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Peter J. Helfrich, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s order striking his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for

production of documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order striking a motion after

FILED

DEC 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment has been entered in the action. Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357

& n.1 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Helfrich’s motions

because final judgment had been entered, and judgment was not first reopened. 

See id. (in the context of a motion to file an amended complaint, a post-judgment

motion may be considered only if the judgment is first reopened under Rule 59 or

60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

We do not consider Helfrich’s arguments concerning the district court’s

November 29, 2012 order denying his motion for in forma pauperis status because

Helfrich failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of

judgment); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a

notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

Helfrich’s motions and requests, filed on September 23, 2014, January 9,

2015, and August 20, 2015, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-16376
#### § 200.7 FHWA Title VI policy.

It is the policy of the FHWA to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR part 21; and related statutes and regulations.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com


Exhibit 4.8


NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA


    NUMBER SHARES


VIEW SYSTEMS, INC.


AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 50,000,000 SHARES            CUSIP NO. 926706 10 2


PAR VALUE: $.006


THIS CERTIFIES THAT


S P E C I M E N


IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF


Shares
of VIEW SYSTEMS, INC. Common Stock


transferable
on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the
Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.



    Witness
the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


Dated:


VIEW SYSTEMS, INC.
CORPORATE

SEAL

FLORIDA



	 	 	 
	/s/ Andrew L. Jiranek
 SECRETARY	 	/s/ G. Than
 PRESIDENT
### §393. Entries under land laws; rights-of-way; lands excluded

Nothing herein contained shall affect any valid claim, location, or entry existing under the land laws of the United States prior to August 1, 1916, whether for homestead, mineral, right-of-way, or any other purpose whatsoever, or shall affect the rights of any such claimant, locator, or entryman to the full use and enjoyment of his land. Whenever consistent with the primary purposes of the park the Act of February fifteenth, nineteen hundred and one,1 applicable to the location of rights of way in certain national parks and the national forests for irrigation and other purposes, shall be and remain applicable to the lands included within the park. The Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion and upon such conditions as he may deem wise, grant easements or rights-of-way for steam, electric, or similar transportation upon or across the park. No lands located within the park boundaries held in private or municipal ownership prior to August 1, 1916, shall be affected by or subject to the provisions of this section and sections 391 and 394 of this title.

(Aug. 1, 1916, ch. 264, §§2, 3, 39 Stat. 433, 434.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Herein, referred to in text, means act Aug. 1, 1916, which is classified to sections 391, 393 and 394 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Act of February fifteenth, nineteen hundred and one, referred to in text, is act Feb. 15, 1901, ch. 372, 31 Stat. 790, which is classified to section 959 of Title 43, Public Lands. The Act, insofar as it related to National Park System units, was repealed and restated as section 100902(a) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3272.

#### Codification

Section is a combination of sections 2 and 3 of act Aug. 1, 1916, all but the last sentence being derived from section 2.

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

#### Haleakalā National Park

Establishment of detached portion of Hawaii National Park lying on island of Maui as Haleakalā National Park, effective July 1, 1961, see section 396b of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00017

- CV

MARK E. BIEDRYCK , Appellant

V.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL A SSOCIATION, AS TRUST EE FOR CREDIT SUISSE

,

FIRST BOSTON MORTGAG E SECURITIES CORP., HOME EQUITY PASS

THROUGH CERTIFICATES , SERIES 2005

- 6 , Appellee

Appeal from the 129th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- 01631).

TO THE 129TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS CO UNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 12th day of May 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on October 7, 2013 . After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Mark E. Biedryck, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.Judgment rendered May 12, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd. Opinion deli vered by Justice Jennings.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 2 3 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
### §423. Petersburg National Battlefield; establishment

In order to commemorate the campaign and siege and defense of Petersburg, Virginia, in 1864 and 1865 and to preserve for historical purposes the breastworks, earthworks, walls, or other defenses or shelters used by the armies therein, the battle fields at Petersburg, in the State of Virginia, are declared a national battlefield whenever the title to the same shall have been acquired by the United States by donation and the usual jurisdiction over the lands and roads of the same shall have been granted to the United States by the State of Virginia—that is to say, one hundred and eighty-five acres or so much thereof as the Secretary of the Interior may deem necessary in and about the city of Petersburg, State of Virginia.

(July 3, 1926, ch. 746, §1, 44 Stat. 822; Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §2, June 10, 1933; Ex. Ord. No. 6228, §1, July 28, 1933; Pub. L. 87–603, §1, Aug. 24, 1962, 76 Stat. 403.)

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

#### Change of Name

"National battlefield" substituted in text for "national military park" in view of redesignation of Petersburg National Military Park as Petersburg National Battlefield by Pub. L. 87–603. See section 423h–1 of this title.

#### Transfer of Portion of Lands to Secretary of the Army

Act June 5, 1942, ch. 345, 56 Stat. 322, provided: "That the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer to the Secretary of War [Army] jurisdiction over all lands owned by the United States lying south and east of the Hickory Hill Road within the Petersburg National Military Park in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Upon the date of the transfer, the lands shall cease to be a part of the Petersburg National Military Park and the Secretary of War [Army] shall thereafter administer the lands for military purposes."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Administrative functions of Petersburg National Military Park transferred to Department of the Interior by Ex. Ord. Nos. 6166 and 6228, set out as notes under section 901 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

National Park Service substituted for Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations referred to in Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §2, by act Mar. 2, 1934, ch. 38, §1, 48 Stat. 389.
Exhibit 21.1

SOLECTRON CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES


                                         State or Other Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary                               Incorporation or Organization
------------                             ------------------------------

Solectron California Corporation         California

Solectron Technology, Inc.               California

Solectron Washington, Inc.               California

Fine Pitch Technology, Inc.              California

Solectron Massachusetts Corporation      California

Solectron Texas, Inc.                    Delaware

Solectron France, S.A.                   France

Solectron GmbH                           Germany

Solectron Scotland Limited               Scotland

Solectron Japan, Inc.                    Japan

Solectron Technology SDN. BHD.           Malaysia

Solectron (Suzhou) Technology Co., Ltd   Suzhou, PRC
§ 91.67 State Environmental Policy Acts. ( a ) *Coordination.* OJP will coordinate with grantees to ensure that any state, local, or tribal environmental impact review requirements similar to the Federal NEPA procedures will be met concurrently, to the extent possible, through requesting the appropriate non-federal agency(ies) to be a joint lead agency(ies). This effort would involve joint analyses, public involvement and documentation. Grantees are responsible for identifying the application of and informing OJP of these state and local requirements.
( b ) *Completed analysis.* For projects that had state or local environmental impact analysis completed prior the implementation of these procedures, OJP will review the documents prepared to meet the state and local requirements. In order to minimize any duplication of analysis, OJP will advise the State on whether additional environmental impact review is required.
#### § 260.401 Purpose.

To prescribe policy and implement procedures for the administration of Federal-aid funds for education and training of State and local highway department employees.