alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6585** 

WALTER DUANE WHITE , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. PUSHP K. CLAUDIUS; FREDDIE GORRIDO; SAMUEL L. BATTS; D. R. STEPHENS , Defendants

– Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:09

- ct

- 03191

- D )

Submitted : October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dism issed in part ; affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Walter Duane White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Walter Duane White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denyi ng his motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion for a preliminary injunction in this Bivens *

DISMISSED IN PART ; action
. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S. C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The court’s denial of White’s motion for appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Acc ordingly, we dismiss th at portion of White’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As for the denial White’s motion for a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the di strict
court. White v. Claudius , No. 5:09

- ct

- 03191

- D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
proc ess.

AFFIRMED IN PART

* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Gallatin Field Airport

5 Mile Radius

Base of Operations

Sly Dog Production
#### § 4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.
### §7322. Delivery of seized personal property to United States marshal

Any forfeitable property which may be seized under the provisions of this title may, at the option of the Secretary, be delivered to the United States marshal of the district, and remain in the care and custody and under the control of such marshal, pending disposal thereof as provided by law.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 869; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:40 PM 

To: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com 

Cc: Richard Parker; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; ArtRosenfeld; Bob Saint; BobSmith; 

Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; CharlieDrexler; Charlie 

Stevens; ChrisBolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; 

Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; 

Hirsch,Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; JerrySchoen; Jim Raba; 

JoannaMauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; KenWinder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew 

Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; MegWaltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; 

Pamela Costello; PhilHarter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski,Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob 

Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve 

Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; 

Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Re: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard" 

I believe that is an editing error that I questioned last winter. I was told it was text from 2007 that 

was not revised. It should read "current standard." 

Regards, 

 

Robert A. Berman, Principal 

Berman Economics 

1915 Grand Court 

Vienna, VA 22182 

703.281.0490 

703.655.8398 (cell) 

Berman.Economics@gmail.com

www.BermanEconomics.com

 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com wrote: 

Mr Parker, 

Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, National Impact Analysis from the September 2011 

analysis that states that the NES are "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard." I'm interpreting 

this as meaning that the savings calculated are against the "affected stock", or the transformers that are 

currently in the field rather than the savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or 

EL0. 

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES analysis is "double counting" the energy savings 

which have already been implemented by the 2007 rule. Since we are comparing LCC and Payback 

against EL0, shouldn't the NES analysis be relative to the current EL0 standard rather than using a 
scenario of "no standard"? 

Regards, 

Eric Petersen Director Customer Technical Services and Research AK Steel Corporation 

Confidentiality Notice 

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, 

proprietary, or otherwise private information. 

If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized 

to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or 

any part of it. If you have received this message in error, 

please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete 

all copies of the message. 

<S45C-211120912440.pdf>
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–27 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE 

MARCH 21 (legislative day, MARCH 20), 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and 

ordered to be printed 

Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 181] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 181, by a nonrecord vote, reports the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any special rule 

reported on or before the legislative day of April 5, 2005, providing 

for consideration of a bill relating to the rights of an incapacitated 

person or persons. 

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1


                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                      Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Gerald O. Hatler, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EvergreenBancorp, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c)   disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 18, 2004

/s/ Gerald O. Hatler

Gerald O. Hatler
Chief Executive Officer
#### § 3284.10 What must a unit operator do to prevent or compensate for drainage?

The unit operator must take all necessary measures to prevent or compensate for drainage of geothermal resources from unitized land by wells on land not subject to the unit agreement (see §§ 3210.16 and 3210.17 of this chapter).
UM TED STATESDISTRICTCOURT

SotrrltEM DlsTm c'rOFFLOD A

CaseN o.20-CR-20163-SCOLA

United StatesofAm erica,

M.

CARLOSENTRIQUEURBANO.FERM IN,

/

W AIVER OF O ICTM ENT

CARLOS ENTRIQUE URBANO-FERM IN,theabovenameddefendant

who is accused of C ONSPm ACY TO DEFR AUD TH E UNITED STA TES,

beingadvisedofthenatureofthechargets),theproposedinformation,andofmy

rights,hereby waived in open courton 4/15/2021,prosecution by lndictm entand

consentthattheproceedingm aybeby lnform ationratherthan by lndictm ent.

la < # - >

Defendant

gyôl/.> -f

CounselforD efendant

Lauren F.Louis

United StatesM agistrateJudge

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2021 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration   

          - [TA-W-55,679]   

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 24, 2004 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Thor-Tex, Inc., Albermarle, North Carolina.   

The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. In order to establish a valid worker group, there must be at least three workers employed at some point during the period under investigation. Workers of the group subject to this investigation did not meet this threshold of employment. Consequently the investigation has been terminated.   

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of September 2004.   

Richard Church,   

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.   

[FR Doc. 04-22803 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]   

BILLING CODE 4510-30-U
**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**

|   | (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. |

|                                      |                                                          |                                   |
|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                     |                              |
| Date: February              19, 2008 | By:                                                 | /s/ Gilles              Ouellette |
|                                      | Gilles              Ouellette                                 |
|                                      | Secretary/TreasurerPrincipal                Financial Officer |

----
#### Elmont Cemetery, Inc., Respondent, v. Northprince Boulevard Holding Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Jerris Realty Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
Exhibit 23.2  Beckstead and Watts, LLP Certified Public Accountants 2425 W Horizon Ridge Parkway Henderson, NV 89052 702.257.1984  tel 702.362.0540 fax   November 30, 2009  Board of Directors instaCare Corp. Westlake Village, CA   Dear Sirs:  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in instaCare Corp.s (Registrant File No. 000-33187) Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our audit report dated May 18, 2009, relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements as at December 31, 2008.    /s/ Beckstead and Watts, LLP Beckstead and Watts; LLP
[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:****Fish and Wildlife ReferenceService newsletter.**
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.18/8:
Item Number:0616-A-02
CGP systemNumber:000323904
 
2000: Summer
2001: Fall
2002: SpringFall
2003: WinterSpringFall
 
February 20, 2020
The Boeing Company


P.O. Box 3707


Seattle, WA 98124 2207


 


Addendum to 6-1163-WEB-1047


 


GAC, Inc.


PO Box 309, Ugland House


Grand Cayman


KY1-1104


Cayman Islands


 


Subject:Addendum to Accommodations for 737 MAX Disruption


Reference:Accommodations for 737 MAX Disruption Agreement
No. 6-1163-WEB 1047, between GAC, Inc. (Customer) and The Boeing Company (Boeing), dated March 20, 2020.


Under the Agreement Customer agreed to take delivery of [****]
Leased Aircraft [****].


Subsequent to the execution of the Agreement, [****] Customer
agreed to take delivery of [****].


Additionally, Boeing agrees to [****] under the Agreement.


All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in
full force and effect.


Confidentiality.


The information contained herein represents confidential
business information and has value precisely because it is not available generally or to other parties. Customer will limit the
disclosure of its contents to its employees with a need to know the contents for purposes of helping Customer perform its respective
obligations under this Agreement and who understand they are not to disclose its contents to any other person or entity without
the prior written consent of Boeing. In addition to any equitable relief that may be available to Boeing, in the event of a breach
of this clause by Customer, Boeing may rescind the considerations provided under this Agreement and Customer will be obligated
to reimburse Boeing for the above accommodations.


Please indicate Customer’s acceptance of this Agreement
on or before June 24, 2020, after which date this offer will expire.


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO


GAC, Inc.




    	 



    	 



    

[****]


The Boeing Company


[****]


 


Attachment A: Wire Transfer Request - Required Information


Correspondent Bank (if applicable)


•       Bank Name:


•       Bank Address:


•       Country:


•       Account Number:


•       Routing Code
(SWIFT code if International):


 


Beneficiary Bank


[****]


Final Beneficiary


[****]


- 2 -
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59981-59982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending September 
24, 2004

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19162.
    Date Filed: September 20, 2004.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC12 NMS-AFR 0209/PTC23 AFR-TC3 0244, dated 21 September 
2004, Mail Vote 403--Resolution 010v--Special Passenger, Amending 
Resolution to/from Libya, Intended effective date: 1 November 2004.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19163.
    Date Filed: September 20, 2004.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
    Subject: PTC23 AFR-TC3 0238, dated 17 September 2004, Africa-South 
Asian Subcontinent Expedited Resolution 002d, for intended effect 1 
November 2004 r1-r6; PTC23 AFR-TC3 0246, dated 21 September 2004, 
Africa-South Asian subcontinent Technical Correction to Memorandum 
PTC23 AFR-TC3 0238 Expedited Resolution 002d, for intended effect 1 
November 2004; PTC23 AFR-TC3 0239, dated 17 September 17 2004, Africa-
South Asian subcontinent Expedited Resolution 002c, for intended effect 
15 January 2005 r7; PTC23 AFR-TC3 0240, dated 17 September 2004, 
Africa-South west Pacific Expedited Resolution 002o, for intended 
effective date 1 November 2004 r8; PTC23 AFR-TC3 0241, dated 17 
September 2004; Africa-South West Pacific Expedited Resolution 002ee, 
for intended effective date 15 January 2004 r9; Intended effective 
date: 1 November 2004, 15 January 2005.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19164.
    Date Filed: September 20, 2004.

[[Page 59982]]

    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC23 ME-TC3 0209, dated 17 September 2004, Middle East-
South Asian Subcontinent Expedited Resolution 002z, for intended 
effective date 15 January 2005 r1; PTC23 ME-TC3 0210, dated 17 
September 2004, Middle East-Japan, Korea Expedited Resolution 002qq, 
for intended effective date 15 January 2005 r2; PTC23 ME-TC3 0211, 
dated 17 September 2004, Middle East-Japan, Korea Expedited Resolution 
085b, for intended effective date 31 March 2005 r3; Intended effective 
date: 15 January 2005, 31 March 2005.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-22502 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
XAVIER VINCENT NIXON , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0189 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013

- 434210

- 001 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Xavier Vincent Nixon , San Luis Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 7-12-2018STATE v. NIXON Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Xavier Vincent Nixon seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition for post

- conviction relief. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court 's ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Pob lete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We conclude that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.