alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Bar Docket No. 10687

In the Matter of K EVIN M. M ANZ ,

Respondent

.
ORDER OF DISBARMENT

In a letter signed January 29, 2018
, addressed to the C lerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Kevin M. Manz
, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered h is license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (201 8 Kan. S. Ct. R. 261 ).

At the time the respondent surrendered h is li cense, a disciplinary complaint was pending, alleging that the respondent violated Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 381 ) ( misconduct), based on his three felony convictions of grand theft for embezzling a total of $1,044,073.43 from thre e not

- for

- profit organizations.

This court finds that the surrender of the respondent' s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

I T I S T HEREFORE O RDERED that Kevin M. Manz be and he is hereby disba rred from the practice of law in Kansas, and h is license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

I T I S F URTHER O RDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate C ourts strike the name of
Kevin M. Manz from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.2

I T I S F URTHER O RDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (201 8 Kan. S. Ct. R. 262 ).

Dated this 1 4th day of February
, 201 8

.
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

**TIME AND DATE:**  Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 3:00 p.m.

**PLACE:** The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission’s headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

**STATUS:**  This meeting will begin at 3:00 p.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via audio webcast only on the Commission’s website at www.sec.gov.

**MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:**  The Commission will consider whether to adopt rule and form amendments that would improve access to capital and facilitate investor communications by business development companies, which primarily invest in small and developing companies, and registered closed-end investment companies.  The Commission will consider these amendments, in part, to implement certain provisions of the Small Business Credit Availability Act and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.  Specifically, the Commission will consider whether to modify the registration, communications, and offering processes for business development companies and other closed-end investment companies under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as related rule and form amendments under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to tailor the disclosure and regulatory framework to these investment companies.  The Commission also will consider whether to adopt rule and form amendments to modernize securities registration fee payments for certain registrants.  

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:**  For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202) 551-5400.

Dated:  April 1, 2020

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 15981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6875]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

TIME AND DATE:  10 a.m. (Eastern Time), March 28, 2011.

PLACE:  4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

STATUS:  Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Parts Open to the Public

    1. Approval of the minutes of the February 28, 2011 Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director:
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report;
    b. Monthly Investment Performance Report;
    c. Legislative Report.
    3. Communication Awards.
    4. Audit Report Discussion.
    5. Audit Findings Summary Report.
    6. Department of Labor Audit Briefing.
    7. Roth Project Update.

Parts Closed to the Public

    8. Security.
    9. Personnel.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: March 18, 2011.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-6875 Filed 3-18-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
§ 771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements. ( a ) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS must be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that: ( 1 ) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or
( 2 ) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.
( b ) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where: ( 1 ) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or
( 2 ) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD must be prepared and circulated in accordance with § 771.127(b).
( c ) Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the Administration determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the Administration must so indicate in the project file.
( d ) A supplement is to be developed using the same process and format (*i.e.,* draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) as an original EIS, except that scoping is not required.
( e ) In some cases, an EA or supplemental EIS may be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project. Where this is the case, the preparation of a supplemental document must not necessarily: ( 1 ) Prevent the granting of new approvals;
( 2 ) Require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or
( 3 ) Require the suspension of project activities, for any activity not directly affected by the supplement. If the changes in question are of such magnitude to require a reassessment of the entire action, or more than a limited portion of the overall action, the Administration must suspend any activities that would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the supplemental document is completed.
#### O. G. Sofield v. State of Nebraska.

Filed April 10, 1901.

No. 11,735.

1. Information: Wame op Person Other Than Accused: Rule Where Unknown. Tlie rule requiring the name of a person other than the accused to be set forth in an information- is subject to the qualification that if the name is unknown, that fact may be so alleged.

2. -: Negative Allegations: Descbiptio Delicti. An information need not negative the exceptions of a statute, which are not descriptive of the offense.

Error from the district court for Ouster county. Tried below before Sullivan, J.

*Affirmed.*

*8. Cameron, C. L. Gutterson, J. R. Dean*and *John 8. Kirkpatrick,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank N. Front, Attorney General,*and *Norris Brown, Deputy, contra.*

*601NORVAL, C. J.

O. G-. Sofield was convicted in the court below of the crime of practicing medicine without a license, or certificate so to do.

It is insisted that the information on which the defendant was tried is fatally defective, because it does not state upon whom he practiced the healing art, and the case of *O’Connor v. State,*46 Nebr., 157, is cited in support of the contention. It is true the information in the case at bar omits to state the name or names of the persons upon whom Sofield practiced his profession, but this does not render the information defective in substance, since it is therein specifically alleged that defendant “did unlawfully practice medicine to divers and sundry persons, whose names are to the county attorney unknown.” This averment was sufficient. Of course, the county attorney was not required to set out in the information the names of the persons the defendant treated, when such persons were unknown to such officer, and he so pleaded in the information. 1 Bishop, New Criminal Procedure, secs. 546-553; 10 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 508; *Coffin v. United States,*156 U. S., 432. The case of *O’Connor v. State, supra,*is distinguishable. There the information omitted the names of the persons treated and-failed to allege that their names were unknown to the county attorney.

The information is assailed on the ground that it failed to contain any negative averment relative to the exceptions contained in section 17, chapter 55, Compiled Statutes. Such a negative averment was wholly unnecessary. *O’Connor v. State, supra.*

The evidence was ample to sustain the verdict, and no reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment is

Affirmed.
---

EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
  FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Graham Douglas, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer, of FormCap Corp. (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, the Quarterly Report on Form
  10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements
  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
  and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
  of the Company.



/s/ Graham Douglas
  -----------------------------Graham Douglas
  President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
  Officer)
  Date: August 14, 2012

---
Exhibit 32.02

              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 FormCap Corp. ( the "Registrant" )
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ( the "Quarterly
Report" ),  I,  Michael Lee,  Chief 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.


Dated : August 8, 2008          Signature : /s/ Michael Lee
                                            ---------------------
                                            Michael Lee
                                            Chief Accounting Officer

<PAGE>
§ 264.6 Application for a nonimmigrant arrival-departure record. ( a ) *Eligibility.* USCIS may issue a new or replacement arrival-departure record to a nonimmigrant who seeks: ( 1 ) To replace a lost or stolen record;
( 2 ) To replace a mutilated record; or
( 3 ) Was not issued an arrival-departure record pursuant to 8 CFR 235.1(h)(1)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) when last admitted as a nonimmigrant, and has not since been issued such record but now requires one.
( b ) *Application.* A nonimmigrant may request issuance or replacement of a nonimmigrant arrival-departure record by applying on the form designated by USCIS with the fee prescribed in 8 CFR 106.2 and in accordance with the form instructions.
( c ) *Processing.* A pending application filed under paragraph (a) of this section is temporary evidence of registration. If the application is approved, USCIS will issue an arrival-departure document. There is no appeal from the denial of this application.
[76 FR 53795, Aug. 29, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 46927, Aug. 3, 2020]
# Official Journal C 33/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5928 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5928 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2016/C 033/1 | European Data Protection Supervisor Decision of 3 December 2015 establishing an external advisory group on the ethical dimensions of data protection (‘the Ethics Advisory Group’) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Data Protection Supervisor

2016/C 033/1

European Data Protection Supervisor Decision of 3 December 2015 establishing an external advisory group on the ethical dimensions of data protection (‘the Ethics Advisory Group’)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 15, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-208947) of Smart Trust 228,
comprising Smart Trust, High 20 Dividend Strategy Trust, Series 13.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 15, 2016
### §7405. Inspections

The Secretary, and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall conduct foreign vessel inspections in ports subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as necessary to achieve the purposes of the Agreement and this chapter. If, following an inspection, the Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that a foreign vessel has engaged in IUU fishing or fishing-related activities in support of such fishing, the Secretary may take enforcement action under this chapter or other applicable law, and shall deny the vessel the use of port services, in accordance with section 7404 of this title.

(Pub. L. 114–81, title III, §306, Nov. 5, 2015, 129 Stat. 667.)
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0529** Docket Number
**2011 -**  **SW -**  **050 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Agusta Bollet tino Tecnico No. 139 - 249, dated July 13, 2011


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m ., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Brennan Lee-Namakaeha <keanu_1992@live.com> 

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:03 PM 

EAS (OST) 

In Support of MAKANI KAI for EAS 

As a resident of Kalaupapa I am STILL in continued support of Makani Kai for the EAS I Kalaupapa! Thank you 

·for your consideration! 

Brennan Lee-Namakaeha 

1
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 6920 Filed 04/29/19 Entered 04/29/19 18:01:43 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 6920 Filed 04/29/19 Entered 04/29/19 18:01:43 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHARLES E. ALLEN,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2018-1649

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-08-0343-I-1.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER

On September 26, 2018, we issued to the parties an 

order to show cause why Charles E. Allen’s petition for 

review should not be dismissed as untimely. Specifically, 

we noted that Allen’s petition for review was filed 72 days 

from the date of the letter that Allen seeks this court to 

review. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), Allen’s petition 

should have been filed 60 days from the date of the letter. 
2 ALLEN v. MSPB

On October 19, 2018, the Board filed its response, arguing that the petition for review is untimely under 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). On October 25, 2018, Allen filed a motion 

for continuance to show cause, explaining that he secured 

legal counsel and needed additional time for counsel to 

review the case and prepare a response. The court granted Allen’s request.

On November 30, 2018, Allen, now represented by 

counsel, filed a response making two arguments. First, 

Allen maintains that the court’s order to show cause is 

unclear as to the basis relied on by this court for its 

timeliness concerns. Second, Allen urges that 

“[f]undamental fairness requires the court to look beyond 

the technical application of statutory rules regarding 

‘time’ and grant [his] request for judicial review.” Pet. 

Response at 3. Both arguments are without merit.

In the order to show cause, we identified the specific 

factual and legal basis giving rise to the concern of 

whether Allen’s petition is timely filed. Allen does not 

challenge that basis or offer an alternative by which this 

court should determine if the filing date of the petition 

satisfies § 7703(b)(1)(A). Allen’s principal argument is 

that it would be unfair to rely on “a mere technicality to 

deny [his] request for review.” Pet. Response at 3. But 

Allen fails to provide any legal basis that allows this court 

to forgo the requirements of § 7703(b)(1)(A). See Oja v. 

Dep’t of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1358–60 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(holding compliance with the filing deadline of 

§ 7703(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling and is a 

prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction); Fedora v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(citing Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 

(Fed. Cir. 1984)). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
ALLEN v. MSPB 3

(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

December 11, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
§ 200.79 Exclusion of supplemental State and local funds from supplement, not supplant and comparability determinations. ( a ) For the purpose of determining compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement in section 1118(b) and the comparability requirement in section 1118(c) of the ESEA, a grantee or subgrantee under this subpart may exclude supplemental State and local funds spent in any school attendance area or school for programs that meet the intent and purposes of title I of the ESEA.
( b ) A program meets the intent and purposes of Title I if the program either— ( 1 ) ( i ) Is implemented in a school in which the percentage of children from low-income families is at least 40 percent;
( ii ) Is designed to promote schoolwide reform and upgrade the entire educational operation of the school to support students in their achievement toward meeting the challenging State academic standards that all students are expected to meet;
( iii ) Is designed to meet the educational needs of all students in the school, particularly the needs of students who are failing, or are most at risk of failing, to meet the challenging State academic standards; and
( iv ) Uses the State's assessment system under § 200.2 to review the effectiveness of the program; or
( 2 ) ( i ) Serves only students who are failing, or are most at risk of failing, to meet the challenging State academic standards;
( ii ) Provides supplementary services designed to meet the special educational needs of the students who are participating in the program to support their achievement toward meeting the State's student academic achievement standards; and
( iii ) Uses the State's assessment system under § 200.2 to review the effectiveness of the program.
( c ) The conditions in paragraph (b) of this section also apply to supplemental State and local funds expended under section 1113(b)(1)(D) and 1113(c)(2)(B) of the ESEA.
[82 FR 31713, July 7, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 31676, July 2, 2019]
§ 263.11 What are the participant payback reporting requirements? ( a ) *Notice of intent.* Participants must submit to the Secretary, within 30 days of completion of, or exit from, as applicable, their training program, a notice of intent to complete a work-related or cash payback, or to continue in a degree program as a full-time student.
( b ) *Work-related payback.* ( 1 ) Starting within six months after exit from or completion of the program, participants must submit to the Secretary employment information, which includes information explaining how the employment is related to the training received and benefits Indian students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students.
( 2 ) Participants must submit an employment status report every six months beginning from the date the work-related service is to begin until the payback obligation has been fulfilled.
( c ) *Cash payback.* If a cash payback is to be made, the Department contacts the participant to establish an appropriate schedule for payments.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1810-0698) [80 FR 22412, Apr. 22, 2015. Redesignated and amended at 85 FR 41379, July 10, 2020]
----

Action brought on 17 October 2005 — Valero Jordana v Commission

(Case T-394/05)

(2006/C 10/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola and I. van Schendel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances similar pleas to those advanced in Case T-385/04 (1).

----

(1)OJ C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 27.

----