alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6863

ALBERT MOSELY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHLAND COUNTY JAIL; DIRECTOR MCCAULLEY;

SWANSON COMMISSARY SERVICE; RICHLAND COUNTY,

SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY COUNCIL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-96-1204-3-19BC)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, James

Miller Davis, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Mosley v. Richland County Jail, No. CA-96-1204-3-19BC

(D.S.C. May 1, 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.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Rita Golden, Respondent, v. Richard Fastenau, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to stay appellant from proceeding further with his appeal from two orders of the Children’s Court of Nassau County, dated April 6, 1960. Motion denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Louise Wolbert, Appellant, v. George A. Wolbert, Respondent.

Motion by appellant: (1) for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals; (2) for a stay; and (3) to compel restitution. Motion in all respects denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1387
SS&LC GROUP, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED; RYLAND TRADING COMPANY; RYLAND TRADING RUSSIA; AO DUBRAVY PROPERTIES OF RUSSIA JOINT STOCK COMPANY; RYLAND-ST. PETERSBURG, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-2168-HAR) Argued: October 29, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BULLOCK, Chief United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Christopher Bowmar Mead, LONDON & MEAD, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Charles Preston Scheeler, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Mark S. London, LONDON & MEAD, Was hington, D.C., for Appellant. Glen K. Allen, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: SS&LC Group, Inc., appeals an order of the district court dismissing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), its action against The Ryland Group, Inc., and several of Ryland's subsidiaries. SS&LC's suit alleged breach of contract and various equitable claims arising from a proposed, but never consummated, purchase by SS&LCof Ryland's interests in a town house development in St. Petersburg, Russia. We have considered the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the judgment of the districtcourt for the reasons stated by that court in its memorandum opinion. SS&LC Group, Inc. v. The Ryland Group, Inc. , No. 95-2168-HAR (D.Md. Feb. 23, 1996).

AFFIRMED
#### § 823.1 Scope and purpose.

This part sets forth special environmental protection performance, reclamation, and design standards for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on prime farmland.
# C_2023145EN.01000901.xml

| 27.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/9

---

Notice concerning the valid proof of origin for imports into the European Union of products originating in Seychelles under the EU – Eastern and Southern Africa interim Economic Partnership Agreement, as from 1 July 2023

(2023/C 145/06)

This notice is issued for the information of customs authorities, importers and economic operators, which are involved in imports into the European Union of products originating in Seychelles under the EU-Eastern and Southern Africa interim Economic Partnership Agreement (‘the EU-ESA iEPA’).

Following a notification made by Seychelles to the Customs Cooperation Committee of the EU-ESA iEPA activating Article 18(3) of Protocol 1 to the EU-ESA iEPA (1), and without prejudice to the exemptions laid down in Articles 18(2) and 29 of Protocol 1, as from 1 July 2023, products originating in Seychelles shall, on importation into the EU, benefit from the preferential tariff treatment of the EU-ESA iEPA only upon submission of an invoice declaration made out, as provided for in Article 23 of Protocol 1, by:

| (i) | an exporter from Seychelles registered in the Registered Exporter system of the European Union, or |
| --- | --- |

(i)

an exporter from Seychelles registered in the Registered Exporter system of the European Union, or

| (ii) | any exporter from Seychelles, for any consignment consisting of one or more packages containing originating products, the total value of which does not exceed EUR 6 000. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

any exporter from Seychelles, for any consignment consisting of one or more packages containing originating products, the total value of which does not exceed EUR 6 000.

From that date, paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of Article 18 shall cease to apply.

---

(1)  As amended by Decision 1/2020 of 14 January 2020 of the EU-ESA EPA Committee

---
#### SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. SOUTHARD, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Julia Sullivan, as administratrix, against Charles H. Southard.

No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 •costs.
###### 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.

#### § 75.606 Protection of trailing cables.

[Statutory Provisions]

Trailing cables shall be adequately protected to prevent damage by mobile equipment.
[COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD]

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
BNH Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-80908, 33-10097, 33-50534, and
33-50536) of our report dated January 26, 1996, on our audit of the consolidated
financial statements of BNH Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and for the
year then ended which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
----------------------------
Hartford, Connecticut
March 22, 1996


[COOPERS & LYBRAND FOOTNOTE TO LETTERHEAD]
### §3522. Detail of employees

The Director may—

(1) detail any personnel of the Agency on a reimbursable basis indefinitely to the National Reconnaissance Office without regard to any limitation under law on the duration of details of Federal Government personnel; and

(2) hire personnel for the purpose of any detail under paragraph (1).

(June 20, 1949, ch. 227, §22, as added Pub. L. 106–567, title IV, §404, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2848.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 403v of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-31T11:13:52-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Exhibit 32-10
**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
I, David E. Meador, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TheDetroit Edison Company (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of myknowledge and belief:
(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and
(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated: August 4, 2004 /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR  David E. Meador Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Detroit Edison Company
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to TheDetroit Edison Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
34
### §3113. Unfunded priorities of the intelligence community: annual report

#### (a) Annual report

Not later than 10 days after the date on which the budget of the President for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the head of each element of the intelligence community shall prepare and submit to the Director of National Intelligence, the congressional intelligence committees, the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on the unfunded priorities of the programs under the jurisdiction of such head.

#### (b) Elements

#### (1) In general

Each report under subsection (a) shall specify, for each unfunded priority covered by such report, the following:

(A) A summary description of such priority, including the objectives to be achieved if such priority is funded (whether in whole or in part).

(B) Whether such priority will satisfy a covert action or support collection against requirements identified in the National Intelligence Priorities Framework of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (or any successor mechanism established for the prioritization of programs and activities), including a description of such requirements and the related prioritization level.

(C) The additional amount of funds recommended in connection with the objectives under subparagraph (A).

(D) Budget information with respect to the unfunded priority, including—

(i) the appropriation account;

(ii) the expenditure center; and

(iii) the project and, if applicable, subproject.

#### (2) Prioritization of priorities

Each report shall present the unfunded priorities covered by such report in overall order of urgency of priority among unfunded priorities.

#### (c) Unfunded priority defined

In this section, the term "unfunded priority", in the case of a fiscal year, means a program, activity, or mission requirement of an element of the intelligence community that—

(1) is not funded in the budget of the President for the fiscal year as submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31;

(2) is necessary to fulfill a covert action or to satisfy an information requirement associated with the collection, analysis, or dissemination of intelligence that has been documented within the National Intelligence Priorities Framework; and

(3) would have been recommended for funding by the head of the element of the intelligence community if—

(A) additional resources had been available for the budget to fund the program, activity, or mission requirement; or

(B) the program, activity, or mission requirement has emerged since the budget was formulated.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title V, §514, as added Pub. L. 117–263, div. F, title LXIII, §6315, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3512; amended Pub. L. 118–31, div. G, title III, §7312, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 1030.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2023—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–31 inserted "prepare and" after "each element of the intelligence community shall".
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42286

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN WORTHLEY ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 838

Filed: December 3, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, Sta te Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Christopher Allen Worthley pled guilty to attempted strangulation and violation of a no

contact order . Idaho Code § § 18

- 923, 18

- 920 . The district court entered a withheld judgment
and placed Worthley on probation for a period of seven years

. Subsequently, he violated his
probation and the district court revoked his probation and imposed a unified sentence of ten
years with three years determinate and retained jurisdiction. After the period of retained
jurisdiction, the district court placed Worthley on probation for ten years. Just over a year later,
Worthley admitted to again violating his probation. The district court revoked his probation and
ordered his underlying sentence executed without reduction. Worthley filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Worthley appeals asserting that the district
court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence

.2 A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill , 15 0 Idaho 183

, 18 6, 244 P. 3 d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010 ). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. S tate v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the
denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent
the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional infor mation in support of
Worthley ’s Rule 35 motion was presented , the district court did not abuse its discretion . For the
foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Worthley ’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                         519,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  219,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               754,723
<PP&E>                                       6,480,246
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,411,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,899,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       476,937
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,231,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,899,250
<SALES>                                        306,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               306,423
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  307,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,623
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### MURPHY, Respondent, v. INDIANA BRIDGE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6, 1903.)

Action by Michael Murphy, as administrator, etc., against the Indiana Bridge Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
1750 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN  55403
(763) 765-6500

May 7, 2001

VIA EDGAR

_________

Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Investment Management
Office of Insurance Products
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

     RE:     Allianz Life Variable Account A
             File No.  33-15464
             ________________________________

Dear Sir/Madam:

Pursuant to Securities  Act Rule 497(j),  we hereby  certify that the Prospectus
that would have been filed under Rule 497(c) does not differ from that contained
in the most recent  Post-effective  Amendment,  which  Amendment has been filed
electronically.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the
undersigned.

Sincerely,

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America


By:  /s/  Catherine L. Mielke
    ________________________________
          Catherine L. Mielke
§ 707.12 Information to be maintained on site. Any person extracting coal incident to government-financed highway or other construction who extracts more than 250 tons of coal or affects more than two acres shall maintain, on the site of the extraction operation and available for inspection, documents which show— ( a ) A description of the construction project;
( b ) The exact location of the construction, right-of-way or the boundaries of the area which will be directly affected by the construction; and
( c ) The government agency which is providing the financing and the kind and amount of public financing, including the percentage of the entire construction costs represented by the government financing.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLife Support Baseline Values and Assumptions DocumentThe Baseline Values and Assumptions Document (BVAD) provides analysts, modelers, and other life support researchers with a common set of values and assumptions which can be used as a baseline in their studies. This baseline, in turn, provides a common point of origin from which many studies in the community may depart, making research results easier to compare and providing researchers with reasonable values to assume for areas outside their experience. This document identifies many specific physical quantities that define life support systems, serving as a general reference for spacecraft life support system technology developers.Document ID20180001338Acquisition SourceJohnson Space CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsAnderson, Molly S.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Ewert, Michael K.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Keener, John F.*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 21, 2018Publication DateJanuary 1, 2018Subject CategoryMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNASA/TP-2015-218570/REV1JSC-E-DAA-TN51698Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNJ13HA01CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180001338.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.17

                         EMPLOYEE SECURED LOAN AGREEMENT
                               AND PROMISSORY NOTE


         This Employee Secured Loan Agreement and Promissory Note (the
"Agreement") is made this 1st day of November 2000 by and between NETGURU, INC.
("NGI") and STEPHEN OWEN ("Employee").

         WHEREAS, Employee is the Senior Vice President of European Operations
and has been granted stock options by NGI, of which certain shares subject to
the stock options are vested and currently exercisable ("Vested Shares Subject
to Options"):

         WHEREAS, Employee has requested permission from NGI to exercise and
sell the Vested Shares Subject to Options, which NGI cannot provide at this
time;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, NGI and Employee agree as follows:

         1.       LOAN. Within five (5) days of the date first set forth above,
                  NGI shall loan to Employee the sum of US$85,000.00, without
                  interest, and payable upon demand by NGI, to be secured by
                  Employee's pledge of the proceeds from the exercise and sale
                  of the Vested Shares Subject to Options, to be consummated
                  when NGI notifies Employee that he may proceed with the sale
                  and exercise of the Vested Shares Subject to Options. NGI
                  covenants not to demand payment hereunder until Employee is
                  permitted to exercise and sell the Vested Shares Subject to
                  Options.

         2.       PROMISSORY NOTE. For value received, Employee unconditionally
                  promises to pay to NGI, upon demand, the principal sum of
                  US$85,000.00, without set-off, deduction or counterclaim and
                  hereby pledges his Vested Shares Subject to Options as
                  security therefor.

         3.       GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced
                  in accordance with the laws of the State of California, USA.

          IN WITNESS WHEROF, NGI and Employee have executed this Agreement as of
the date first set forth above.

         EMPLOYEE:  STEPHEN OWEN                     NETGURU, Inc.



         /s/ Stephen Owen                   By: /s/ Amrit Das
         -----------------------            -------------------------------
                                            Amrit Das,
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer