alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §160. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, which was from acts Aug. 24, 1949, ch. 506, title I, §101, 63 Stat. 646; Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, ch. VIII, title I, §101, 64 Stat. 711, and prior appropriation acts, related to employment of aliens, and was not repeated in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952, act Aug. 31, 1951, ch. 376, 65 Stat. 268.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANATOLIY A. VENSKYY

PETITION OF: THEODORA

COSTOPOULES :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 304 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of December, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7588** 

CLEVELAND LEWIS WILLIAMS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; BONTIA WITHERSPOON , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv - 00598

- FDW )

Submitted : June 30, 2016 Decided: July 26, 2016

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Cleveland Lewis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Caroli na, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cleveland Lewis Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss his appeal for lack of juri sdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases in which the United States is not a party, parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The district court may, however, extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if a party so moves within thirty days after the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The district court may also reopen the appeal period upon a timely motion by a party. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The dis trict court’s order dismissing Williams’ § 2254 petition was entered on August 21, 2015. Thus, Williams had until September 21, 2015, to file a notice of appeal. Williams executed his notice of appeal on October 5, 2015. Although the appeal period may b e extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopened under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), Williams has failed to file any motion seeking relief pursuant to these provisions.3 See Shah v. Hutto , 722 F.2d 1167, 1168

- 69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (“A bare notice of appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension of time, where no request for additional time is manifest.”) Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Donnkenny Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel H. Levy, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of
          the Company.




/s/ Daniel H. Levy


Daniel H. Levy

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2004


                                       24
Exhibit 31.1



I, Gabriel B. Vegh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cardima, 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(s) 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 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(s) 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: August 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /S/    GABRIEL B. VEGH                                           
|                      |  |     |  | Gabriel B. Vegh Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 56.19062 Maximum acceleration and deceleration.

Maximum normal operating acceleration and deceleration shall not exceed 6 feet per second per second. During emergency braking, the deceleration shall not exceed 16 feet per second per second.
| (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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August      13, 2008 | /s/ Ronald A.      Duncan    |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                  | Ronald A.      Duncan        |
|                                  | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                                  | GCI,      Inc.               |

----
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2023307EN.01003501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 31.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/35 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11214 – MUBADALA CAPITAL / FORTRESS MANAGEMENT / FIG)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 307/06)

1.

On 24 August 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023307EN.01003501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Mubadala Capital LLC (‘Mubadala Capital’, Saudi-Arabia), controlled by Mubadala Investment Company PJSC (Saudi-Arabia), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | FIG Buyer GP (‘Fortress Management’, USA), a newly formed entity wholly-owned by members of the current management team of Fortress Investment Group LLC, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Fortress Investment Group LLC (‘FIG’, USA). |

Mubadala Capital and Fortress Management will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of FIG.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of equity interests and a limited partnership agreement.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Mubadala Capital is the asset management subsidiary of MIC, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Fortress Management is owned by members of the current management team of FIG, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | FIG is a diversified investment management firm. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2023307EN.01003501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11214 - MUBADALA CAPITAL / FORTRESS MANAGEMENT / FIG

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2023307EN.01003501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2023307EN.01003501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
### §3352c. Goals for promptness of determinations regarding security clearances

#### (a) In general

The Council shall reform the security clearance process with the objective that, by December 31, 2021, 90 percent of all determinations, other than determinations regarding populations identified under section 3352b(b)(3)(C) of this title, regarding—

(1) security clearances—

(A) at the secret level are issued in 30 days or fewer; and

(B) at the top secret level are issued in 90 days or fewer; and

(2) reciprocity of security clearances at the same level are recognized in 2 weeks or fewer.

#### (b) Certain reinvestigations

The Council shall reform the security clearance process with the goal that by December 31, 2021, reinvestigation on a set periodicity is not required for more than 10 percent of the population that holds a security clearance.

#### (c) Equivalent metrics

#### (1) In general

If the Council develops a set of performance metrics that it certifies to the appropriate congressional committees should achieve substantially equivalent outcomes as those outlined in subsections (a) and (b), the Council may use those metrics for purposes of compliance within this provision.

#### (2) Notice

If the Council uses the authority provided by paragraph (1) to use metrics as described in such paragraph, the Council shall, not later than 30 days after communicating such metrics to departments and agencies, notify the appropriate congressional committees that it is using such authority.

#### (d) Plan

Not later than 180 days after December 20, 2019, the Council shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and make available to appropriate industry partners a plan to carry out this section. Such plan shall include recommended interim milestones for the goals set forth in subsections (a) and (b) for 2019, 2020, and 2021.

(Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LXVI, §6604, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2213; Pub. L. 117–263, div. F, title LXVIII, §6824(b)(3), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3615.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsecs. (c)(1), (d). Pub. L. 117–263 substituted "subsections (a) and (b)" for "subsections (b) and (c)".

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of "Council", "reciprocity", "appropriate congressional committees", and "appropriate industry partners", referred to in text, see section 3352 of this title.
U.S. Department

of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591



### Declaration ofAssociate Administrator for Airports I, D. Kirk Shaffer, holding the position ofAssociate Administrator for Airports, hereby declares as follows pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. The case, In the Matter a/Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City a/Santa Monica, California, Docket No. 16-02-08, involving the City of Santa Monica's Ordinance banning C and D category aircraft from Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa), among other issues, ispresently before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office ofAirports pursuant to a 14CFR Part 16 Notice ofInvestigation. 2. Ihave led the FAA effort over the past year to resolve the pending Part 16case in discussions with City Officials, Members ofCongress, City residents and residents from the City ofLos Angeles. Ihave appeared before the City Council and attwo public hearings in Santa Monica on the relevant issues. Inthese discussions and exchanges ofcorrespondence the FAA and the City presented their respective positions on the matter. 3. While Ihave led this effort as Ipromised the Airport Manager I would do, Ihave not prejudged the pending Part 16case, nor has the City presented evidence to establish bias as amatter oflaw. 4. However, to avoid even the appearance of alleged impropriety inthe FAA decision making process under 14CFR Part 16with respect to the final decision in this case, Ihereby remove myself as the final decision maker inthe Part 16proceeding, In the Matter a/Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City a/Santa Monica, California, Docket No. 16-02-08, including from any and all participation in deciding the final agency decision inthis case under 14 CFR § 16.33 and 16.241(c). 5. Ihereby delegate my authority as final decision maker for this case under 14 CFR § 16.33 and 16.241 (c), to Daniel K. Elwell, Assistant Administrator for Aviation, Policy and Environment, an FAA executive outside the Office ofAirports and not subordinate to me. Ideclare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that the foregoing is true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief. Executed on the 25day ofMay, 2008, at Washington, D.C. 

# .cc 

# CD-ltV, D. Ki k Shaffer Associate Administrator for Airports Federal Aviation Administration EXHIBIT 

# IJJ_I_
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-30369 

22-NOV-2011 

12:26 PM 

NO. SCWC-30369
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 


vs.
 

JAMES H. PFLUEGER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(ICA NOS. 30369 and 30419; CR. NO. 08-1-0280)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ., and


Circuit Judge Chan, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)
 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant James H. Pflueger’s
 

application for writ of certiorari, filed on October 12, 2011, is
 

hereby rejected. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 22, 2011. 

William C. McCorriston, /

David J. Minkin, and


Becky T. Chestnut /

(McCorriston Miller Mukai


MacKinnon LLP) for /

petitioner/defendantappellant on the /

application
 

s/ Paula A. Nakayama


s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.


s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.


s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan


Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry,


First Deputy Solicitor


General, for respondent/


plaintiff-appellee on


the response
### §415a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 415a, comprising section 506 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3096 of this title.
KPMG LLP
4200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN  55402




                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors of Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
and the Contract Owners of Allianz Life Variable Account A:

We consent to the use of our report,  dated  March 30, 2001 on the  financial
statements of Allianz Life Variable  Account A and our report dated January 16,
2001, on the consolidated financial statements of Allianz Life Insurance Company
of North America and  subsidiaries  included  herein and to the reference to our
Firm under the heading "EXPERTS".

Our report dated January 16, 2001 on the  consolidated  financial  statements of
Allianz Life  Insurance  Company of North America and  subsidiaries  refers to a
change in the  method  of  calculating  deferred  acquisition  costs and  future
benefit reserves for two-tiered annuities.



                                      KPMG LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2001
----

| (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. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 3, 2013 |  /s/ John M. Lowber  |
|-------------------|--------------------------------|
|              | John M. Lowber                 |
|              | Treasurer and Director         |
|              | GCI, Inc.                      |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JORGE MARTINEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 36 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of July, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
§ 750.11 Permits. ( a ) No person shall conduct surface coal mining operations on Indian lands after eight months following the effective date of this subchapter unless that person has first obtained a permit pursuant to this part.
( b ) Any person conducting surface coal mining and reclamation operations on lands subject to this part shall comply with the terms and conditions of the permit, the requirements of this subchapter, and the Act.
( c ) Surface coal mining operations authorized prior to the effective date of this subchapter may be conducted beyond the eight-month period specified in paragraph (a) of this section if the following conditions are present: ( 1 ) An application for a permit to conduct those operations under this part has been made within two months of the implementation of the Federal program for Indian lands;
( 2 ) OSM has not yet rendered an initial administrative decision approving or disapproving the permit application; and
( 3 ) Those operations are conducted in compliance with all terms and conditions of the lease or minerals agreement, the existing authorization to mine, the requirements of the Act, and the requirements of 25 CFR Chapter I.
( d ) Whenever surface coal mining and reclamation operations are proposed to include both Indian lands and non-Indian lands, OSM will use reasonable efforts to ensure that reviews of the permit applications will be conducted cooperatively and concurrently by OSM and the regulatory authority responsible for the non-Indian lands.
[49 FR 38477, Sept. 28, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 13822, Apr. 5, 1989]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t a bl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R OG E R B E NS ON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30166 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - CR- 0 6 0 6 9 - LRS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e r n D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on L onny R . S uko, C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i t t e d J a nua r y 11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

### Ro ge r Be nsonappe al s f

ro m the 33- m onth se nte nc e im pose d f oll ow inghis gu il ty-pl ea co nv ic ti onforesc ap e fro m cu st ody , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 7 51 . We h av e j ur i s d i c t i o np ur s u antt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , an dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

JAN 26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA H / Res ea r ch 09- 30166



### Be nsonc ont en ds that the dis tric t c our t pl ai nly e rr ed whe n it f ai le d to giv e him cre dit for the tim e served on an undischarged concurrent state sentence, under U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.3 (b )(1 ). Be nson ’ s c ont entio n la ck s merit be ca usethe state se nte nc e did not r es ult from “relevant conduct,” see U . S. S. G§ 1B 1. 3, and w as not use d to inc re as e Ben so n’s b as e o ffen se lev el . Cf . U nited Sta tes v . A rm ste ad, 552 F . 3d 7 69, 783 -8 4 (9th Cir. 2008 ). AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1101-12 Equivalent dry-pipe system.

Where water sprinkler systems are installed to protect main and secondary belt conveyor drives and freezing temperatures prevail, an equivalent dry-pipe system may be installed.