alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000066

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST 2006-WMC2, ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-WMC2, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. DONNA MAE AMINA, AKA DONNA M. AMINA; MELVIN KEAKAKU AMINA, AKA MELVIN K. AMINA, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF 2304 METCALF STREET, Defendants-Appellees, and NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC.; ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC181000540)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)Upon review of the record, it appears that selfrepresented Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/CounterclaimantsAppellants Melvin Keakaku Amina, AKA Melvin K. Amina, and Donna Mae Amina, AKA Donna M. Amina ( Amina Parties ) appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's May 20, 2022 "Order Denying [Amina Parties']: (1) Second Motion for More Time to Respond to Aldridge Pite's Motion for Summary Judgment, Filed April 22, 2022, and (2) Motion to Continue Hearing on Aldridge Pite's Motion for Summary Judgment" ( 5/20/22 Order ), and its July 11, 2022 "Amended Final Judgment Regarding Order Granting: (1) Third-Party Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP's Motion for Summary Judgment on [Amina Parties'] Third-Party Complaint Filed May 21, 2019, Filed Herein on January 25, 2022 ('AP's MSJ'); and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-23-0000066 23-FEB-2023 07:52 AM Dkt. 7 ODSLJNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) Third-Party Defendant Nationwide Title Clearing, LLC, F/K/A Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc.'s Substantive Joinder to AP's MSJ, Filed February 17, 2022" ( 7/11/22 Amended Judgment ).

Assuming, arguendo , that an appeal from the 7/11/22 Amended Judgment would bring up for review the 5/20/22 Order, the Amina Parties nonetheless failed to file the December 9, 2022 Notice of Appeal within thirty days after entry of the 7/11/22 Amended Judgment, as required by Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 4(a)(1). SeeHRAP Rule 26(e) ("The reviewing court for good cause shown may relieve a party from a default occasioned by any failure to comply with these rules, except the failure to give timely notice of appeal."); Narmore v. Kawafuchi , 112 Hawai i 69, 81, 143 P.3d 1271, 1283 (2006) ("The requirement that a party timely file a notice of appeal has been held to be jurisdictional by this court.").

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, February 23, 2023. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge
/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

2
G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
Certified Public Accountant
                                         330 E. Warm Springs
                                         Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                702.257.1984
                                            702.362.0540 fax





March 27, 2002


To Whom It May Concern:

The  firm  of  G.  Brad  Beckstead,  CPA,  consents  to  the
inclusion  of my report of March 27, 2002, on the  Financial
Statements  of  Vanity Enterprises, Inc. for  the
years  ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, in its Form  10K-SB
filing  to  be  filed  with the US Securities  and  Exchange
Commission.

Signed,


/s/ Brad Beckstead

G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
Sheri Oberle 

Regulatory Affair Manager - Americas 

Kind regards, 

p.1 

AkzoNobel Coatings, Inc. 

OPPI CBIC 

RECEIVED AkzoNobel)i, 

2014 DEC -9 Ati 6: 33 CBIC Control Number 

362905 

Document Control Office (7407M) November 27, 2014 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Re: Proposed Significant New Use Rules: Certain Nonylphenols and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates 

Sanitized 

To whom it may concern, 

AkzoNobel N.V. is a worldwide supplier of coatings and specialty chemicals and an industry 

leader in sustainability, product support and corporate responsibility. AkzoNobel is committed to 

providing quality products to support customer and market need as well as ensuring that our products 

provide the utmost level of safety for our consumers and environment. 

AkzoNobel is concerned about the recently promulgated Significant New Use Rule dated Oct. 

1, 2014 concerning certain nonylphenols and nonylphenol ethoxylates (Docket: [EPA—HQ—OPPT2007-0490; FRL-9912-87], Federal Register pg. 59186). 

After discussions with several of our suppliers, the proposed Significant New Use Rule will 

affect at least 12 raw materials across 3 business units. Our suppliers have confirmed that the CAS 

numbers 9016-45-9 and 84852-15-3 are being provided to us, with several uses of the latter 

material falling outside of the epoxy cure catalyst exemption. AkzoNobel is requesting a 

correction from the EPA for CAS number 84852-15-3 which is also used as 

CAS number 9016- 

45-9 is currently used All stated 

additional uses for CAS number 84852-15-3 and 9016-15-3 were in commerce prior to Oct. 1, 2014. 

AkzoNobel and the EPA have the same goals in the reduction of nonylphenol and nonylphenol 

ethoxylate usage. Previously, AkzoNobel has established in good faith several risk management 

guidelines to reduce the use of these chemicals with the intent of elimination and has been actively 

discontinuing usage in operations where possible. However, that is an ongoing process. If finalized, this 

regulation would impact the operations of several business units across AkzoNobel. Given that 

AkzoNobel has several uses of the nonylphenols and nonylphenols that fall outside of the intermediate 

and epoxy cure catalyst category, the finalization of this regulation would impose a substantial 

additional burden on AkzoNobel to demonstrate compliance without any amendment to reflect current 

uses in our operations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide industry input to the Agency. Thank 

you for your time and attention in this matter. 

6001 Antoine Drive T + 1 713-684-5848 

Houston, Texas 77091 F +1 713-684-1348 

USA www.AkzoNobel.com 

Registered office tbc Registered number 1234567890
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7690
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COURTNEY HUGH WALKER, a/k/a Gary Walker, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-18, CA-96-293-2) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Courtney Hugh Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We interpret Walker's informal brief filed on January 28, 1997, to serve as his notice of appeal of the January 8, 1997, district court order. Walker's informal brief may serve as a notice of appeal because it was filed within the appeal period of the January 8, 1997, order and meets the Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) content requirements. See Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Walker, Nos. CR-94-18; CA-96-293-2 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 8, 1997). * 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 process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 American Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
statutory business trust Series I (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of
Richman American Credit Corp., Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ David Salzman
------------------------------
David Salzman
Chief Executive Officer of Richman
American Credit Corp., Manager
of the Company
February 13, 2003
### §441. Deposit of refuse prohibited; penalty

The placing, discharging, or depositing, by any process or in any manner, of refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders, mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, or any other matter of any kind, other than that flowing from streets, sewers, and passing therefrom in a liquid state, in the waters of any harbor subject to this subchapter, within the limits which shall be prescribed by the supervisor of the harbor, is strictly forbidden, and every such act is made a misdemeanor, and every person engaged in or who shall aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of this section, shall, upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, such fine to be not less than $250 nor more than $2,500, and the imprisonment to be not less than thirty days nor more than one year, either or both united, as the judge before whom conviction is obtained shall decide, one-half of said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving information which shall lead to conviction of this misdemeanor.

(June 29, 1888, ch. 496, §1, 25 Stat. 209; Pub. L. 85–802, §1(1), Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 970.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Section 1 of act June 29, 1888, superseded act Aug. 5, 1886, ch. 929, §3, 24 Stat. 329, which provided that: "It shall not be lawful to cast, throw, empty, or unlade, or cause, suffer, or procure to be cast, thrown, emptied, or unladen, either from or out of any ship, vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft, or from the shore, pier, wharf, or mills of any kind whatever, any ballast, stone, slate, gravel, earth, slack, rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs, edgings, sawdust, slag or cinders or other refuse or mill-waste of any kind, into New York Harbor: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to the casting out, unlading, or throwing out of any ship or vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft, any stones, rocks, bricks, lime, or other materials used, or to be used, in or toward the building, repairing, or keeping in repair any quay, pier, wharf, weir, bridge, building, or other work lawfully erected or to be erected on the banks or sides of said harbor, or to the casting out, unloading or depositing of any material excavated for the improvement of navigable waters, into such places and in such manner as may be deemed by the United States officer supervising the improvement of said harbor most judicious and practicable and for the best interests of such improvement."

#### Amendments

1958—Pub. L. 85–802 substituted "waters of any harbor subject to this subchapter," for "tidal waters of the harbor of New York, or its adjacent or tributary waters, or in those of long Island Sound,".

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

#### Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Pub. L. 85–802, §2, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 971, provided that: "This Act [amending this section and sections 442, 446, 447, 449, 451, and 451a of this title and enacting section 451b of this title] shall take effect on the sixtieth day after the date of its enactment [Aug. 28, 1958]."
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I,
Gabi Seligsohn, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

1.       
          This Annual Report on Form 20-F of Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. (the
          Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the
          Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 11, 2007

| |  | /s/ Gabi Seligsohn
Gabi SeligsohnPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
§ 831.1521 Limitations. ( a ) The amount of any allotment may not be less than one dollar ($1) and, in the absence of compelling circumstances, shall be in whole dollars.
( b ) The total amount of any allotment(s) may not exceed the net monthly annuity due the allotter.
( c ) An annuitant may make only one allotment payable to the same allottee at the same time and may make no more than a total of two allotments.
( d ) Payment of an allotment shall be discontinued when the allotter's annuity payments are terminated or suspended by OPM.
( e ) Allotments shall be disbursed on one of the regularly designated paydays of the allotter in accordance with OPM's agreement with the allottee.
( f ) Allotters shall agree that OPM shall be held harmless for any authorized allotment request made by an allottee in accordance with the allottee's agreement with OPM.
( g ) Allotters shall agree that disputes regarding any authorized allotment shall be a matter between the allotter and the allottee.
( h ) The total number of allottees shall be limited to twenty (20), with first preference given to those organizations participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Thereafter, preference shall be based on the date of application and the number of annuitants who have completed allotment authorizations.
( i ) OPM, in its discretion, shall recover from the allottee, the incremental costs of making allotments.
( j ) OPM, in its sole discretion, may terminate an allottee's participation in the allotment program described by this subpart at any time in accordance with its agreement with the allottee.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2004-18820; Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-46]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Kennett, MO.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57839). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on January 20, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO on October 28, 2004.

Anthony D. Roetzel,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 04-24975 Filed 11-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MELISSA RENEE FERRINGER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 256 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1855

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require home health 

agencies participating in the Medicare Program to conduct criminal background checks for all applicants for employment as patient care providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2003

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 

home health agencies participating in the Medicare Program to conduct criminal background checks for all applicants for employment as patient care providers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1855 IH 

1 SECTION 1. REQUIRING MEDICARE HOME HEALTH AGEN2 CIES TO CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND 

3 CHECKS ON ALL APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOY4 MENT AS PATIENT CARE PROVIDERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1891(a) of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bbb(a)) is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(7) The agency submits to the Attorney Gen9 eral a criminal background request described in sec10 tion 124(a) of the Departments of Commerce, Jus11 tice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies 

12 Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 

13 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277) for 

14 each applicant for employment in a position involved 

15 in direct patient care.’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 subsection (a) applies to applications for employment 

18 made on or after 90 days after the date of the enactment 

19 of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10(a)(8)

Schedule of Change in Control Agreements

Roy L. Cordes, Jr.
Brian T. Harrison
H. P. Mechler
R. Martin Thompson
Arthur Saxby
#### § 575.313 Records and reports.

Each agency must keep a record of each determination to pay a retention incentive and make such records available for review upon OPM's request.

[70 FR 25747, May 13, 2005, as amended at 78 FR 49364, Aug. 14, 2013]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of D. J. B., D. G., D. G., D. G. and D. L. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00989

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 26726

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from a parental termination order

. Our deadline for disposing of termination cases is 180 days after the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. Jud.

Admi n. 6.2(a), reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. Ann, tit. 2, subtit. F app. (West 2013). Therefore, it is imperative that records are timely filed.

The deadline for filing the reporter’s record was December 27, 2016. On December 29,
2016, an order issued adv ising that the record was overdue and ordering the reporter’s record to be filed within 10 days. On January 9, 2017, court reporter Delores Johnson filed volumes 3 and 5 of the reporter’s record. Johnson also advised of two other court reporters who were involved in the case. One of those reporters, Walter Johnson, filed a notice on January 11 that he was not involved. He stated that the two reporters were Delores Johnson and Angelia Singleton. The other court reporter, Angelia Singleton, has not responded to our December 29 order.

Accordingly, we order court reporter Angelia Singleton to file the remaining volumes of reporter’s record on or before January 27 , 2017

.

It is s o ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 12, 2017