alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Michael McNamara, Respondent, v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, Appellant.

Order, entered July 31, 1959, directing the reinstatement of petitioner’s license, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant leave to the commission again to suspend such license pending final action in the proceeding before it upon the making of-a proper determination that the continuance of petitioner’s license will be “inimicable to the public peace or safety ”, and otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. Under the statute (L. 1953, *1018eh. 882, Part I, Compact, art. XI, § 4) temporary suspensions by the commission are not limited to conduct of a violent character or that which would create a public disorder in the nature of a breach of the peace. Indeed, there is cogent ground for construing “ public peace ” to embrace any criminal violation (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [Rawle’s 3d rev.] “ Peace ”, *“*Public Peace ”; 70 C. J. S., Peace, pp. 379-380; cf. *Neuendorf*v. *Duryea,*6 Daly 276, 280). But be that as it may, in exercising its broad power to suspend licenses temporarily the commission is bound to relate the charges against the licensee or his conduct to public safety, public peace or both. This it can do on the information it has when it institutes a proceeding and it should so certify in directing a temporary suspension. Merely to recite the conclusory words of the statute, “ public peace or safety ”, is not enough. In passing, it is noted that there is no sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting this appeal or, for that matter, in the determination of the charges against petitioner. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.B








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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009,
of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Sult, Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, certify (i) that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
     /s/ John R.
      SultJohn R.
      SultSenior Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)El Paso
      Natural Gas CompanyNovember 6,
      2009
          A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Vehicle Date Bag 1 City Bag 2 Hwy Bag 1 Avg Bag 2 Avg Delta Bag 1 Delta Bag 2 Delta 

Bag 1 

Avg

Delta 

Bag 2 

Avg

20-May A/C Off, Denso SAS 346.5 206.8

21-May A/C Off, Denso SAS 342.1 205.6

22-May A/C Off, Denso SAS 319.6 204.4

23-May A/C Off, Denso SAS 318.4 205.3 319.0 204.9

3-Jun A/C Off, Denso Baseline 320.7 210.0

4-Jun A/C Off, Denso Baseline 320.8 205.6

5-Jun A/C Off, Denso Baseline 315.6 204.4

6-Jun A/C Off, Denso Baseline 317.1 205.6 316.4 205.0

20-May A/C On, Denso SAS 396.4 216.7 49.9 9.9

21-May A/C On, Denso SAS 371.9 215.9 29.8 10.3

22-May A/C On, Denso SAS 357.1 213.8 37.5 9.4

23-May A/C On, Denso SAS 358.2 214.2 357.7 214.0 39.8 8.9 38.7 9.1

3-Jun A/C On, Denso Baseline 366.9 220.9 46.2 10.9

4-Jun A/C On, Denso Baseline 354.6 215.3 33.8 9.7

5-Jun A/C On, Denso Baseline 359.0 214.8 43.4 10.4

6-Jun A/C On, Denso Baseline 354.3 215.6 356.7 215.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 10.3
0.091 0.115 0.365 0.112 delta =
Avg

23.9

25.2
1.3
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of CB Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald K. Migita,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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/  RONALD K. MIGITA
-------------------------------------------------
    Ronald K. Migita
    President and Chief Executive Officer

March 10, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to CB Bancshares, Inc. and will be
retained by CB Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 263.11 Penalties. ( a ) Except with respect to the laws of the State of Maryland assimilated under 18 U.S.C. 13, whoever shall be found guilty of violating these regulations is subject to a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 318c. Except as expressly provided in this part, nothing contained in these regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations, or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to the area in which the site is situated.
( b ) In addition to the penalties described in subsection (a) of this section, parking privileges may be revoked by the issuing authority for violations of any of the provisions of this regulation.
( c ) Any motor vehicle that is parked in violation of this regulation may be towed away or otherwise moved if a determination is made by a uniformed guard that it is a nuisance or hazard. A fee for the moving service and for the storage of the vehicle, if any, may be charged, and the vehicle is subject to a lien for that charge.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10958

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel; PHI

- NGA JEANNIE LE , Plaintiff s
- Appell ees

v. STANLEY THAW; MICHAEL KINCAID , Defendant s
- Appell ants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09

- CV

- 2482

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Relator Phi

- Nga Jeannie Le filed a qui tam complaint on behalf of herself and the United States against, among other defendants, Stanley Thaw and Michael Kincaid. She alleged three claims under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. Th e district court granted Le’s motion for partial summary judgment on claims one and three of her complaint and her motion for entry of judgment and entered judgment against Thaw and Kincaid in the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 13, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10958 Document: 00513462891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2016No. 15

- 10958

2 amount of $2,106,838.92 and for reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and

costs. T he district court dismissed some but not all claims ; we must sua sponte examine whether we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Martin v.
Halliburton , 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010) . We have jurisdiction over appeals f rom (1) final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to a jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral order doctrine; (3) interlocutory orders specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (4) interlocutory orders that are properly certified for appeal by the district court pursuant to Federal Rul e of Civil Procedure 54(b) or § 1292(b). Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co. , 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army , 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 & n.3 (5th Cir. 198 1). The order from which Thaw and Kincaid appeal does not fall within any of these categories, so we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the appeal is DISMISSED. Thaw and Kincaid’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIE D. Their motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED. See Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2d 494, 502

- 03 (5th Cir. 1985). Case: 15-10958 Document: 00513462891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2016
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-16T13:45:32-0400
      - 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
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG CLIFFORD BUSCH, 

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 06-16154

v. D.C. No.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, in her CV-04-04157-MJJ

capacity as Director of the  Northern District

California Department of of California,

Corrections; JOSEPH L. MCGRATH, San Francisco

Warden, in his capacity as ORDER Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison,

Respondents-Appellees. 

Filed November 13, 2007

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Richard D. Cudahy,* and

M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 29, 2007 is hereby withdrawn.

Appellant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and for Modification

of Published Opinion is rendered moot. A modified opinion

will be filed at a later date.

*The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit Judge

for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. 

14791
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2007 Thomson/West.
#### Northville Dock Corporation, Respondent, v. Carl L. Aller et al., Appellants.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 23, 1959, which: (1) grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice; (2) appoints a Referee to compute the amount due and to become due upon the mortgage and the underlying bond; and (3) directs that judgment of foreclosure and sale be granted upon the coming in of the Referee’s report. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Pursuant to section 562-a of the Civil Practice Act, the order granting reargument of said motion and adhering to the original determination, has been reviewed. Said order is undated, but it indicates that the motion for reargument was heard on September 14, 1959. The order is affirmed, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.210 Review action in instances of unavailable records. ( a ) In the event that Department of the Navy personnel or health records associated with a requested review of discharge are not located at the custodial activity, the following action shall be taken by the NDRB prior to consideration of the request for discharge review. ( 1 ) A certification that the records are unavailable shall be obtained from the custodial activity.
( 2 ) The applicant shall be notified of the situation and requested to provide such information and documents as may be desired in support of the request for discharge review. A period of not less than 60 days shall be allowed for such documents to be submitted. At the expiration of this time period, the review may be conducted with information available to the NDRB.
( 3 ) The presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs may be applicable in instances of unavailable records depending on the circumstances of the case. (See § 724.211)
( b ) [Reserved]
[50 FR 10943, Mar. 19, 1985, as amended at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000]
#### §§ 719.139-719.141 [Reserved]
§ 536.13 Chief, National Guard Bureau. The Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB), shall: ( a ) Ensure the designation of a point of contact for claims matters in each State Adjutant General's office.
( b ) Provide the name, address, and telephone number of these points of contact to the Commander USARCS.
( c ) Designate claims officers to investigate claims generated by ARNG personnel and forward investigations to the Active Army ACO that has jurisdiction over the area in which the claims incident occurred.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimation of parameters in linear structural relationships:  Sensitivity to the choice of the ratio of error variancesMaximum likelihood estimation of parameters in linear structural relationships under normality assumptions requires knowledge of one or more of the model parameters if no replication is available. The most common assumption added to the model definition is that the ratio of the error variances of the response and predictor variates is known. The use of asymptotic formulae for variances and mean squared errors as a function of sample size and the assumed value for the error variance ratio is investigated.Document ID19840010890Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsLakshminarayanan, M. Y.*(Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas, TX, United States)*Gunst, R. F.*(Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-171756NAS 1.26:171756Accession Number84N18958Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC9-9Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840010890.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
### §554. National identification system not authorized

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the development of a national identification system or card.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title XV, §1514, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2311.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 101 of this title and Tables.
Lexter Kossie#700661

,William McConnell Unit

3001 South Emily Drive

rBeeville, Texas 78102

April 26, 2015

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

RE: WR HOs. 10,978-01 thru 10,978-16

Tr.Ct.NOs. 679887-A thru 679887-K

185th District Court - Harris County

torn 01 ,07,03, tH&Bfto-ft

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 29 2015

Dear Clerk:

Recently I have been cited for abuse of the writ. In

order for me to show that the claims I intend to raise in my

subsequent writ are not barred by Sec 4 I am requesting the

docket sheet of all the writs mentioned above with a list of

all of the claims presented in each of those application. With

out a list of all of the claims I cannot show that the claims

I intend to raise have not been raised before in those prior

applications.

Thank you for any consideration given in this matter.

Sincerely,

cc:File Lextsif Kennon Kossie
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 The following certification is furnished in connection with Dynamics
Research Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 and is not filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii)
of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 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 on Form 10-Q of Dynamics Research
Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the Company), for the period
ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge: (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange
Act; 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/ James P. ReganJames P. ReganAugust 9, 2004
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 53
§ 752.5 Salvage. ( a ) *Scope.* This section relates to salvage claims against or by the Navy for compensation for towage and salvage services, including contract salvage, rendered to a vessel in the naval service or to other property under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy, or for salvage services rendered by the Department of the Navy. Suits for salvage may be maintained under the Public Vessels Act, and salvage claims are within the Secretary of the Navy's administrative-settlement authority under 10 U.S.C. 7622. Salvage claims against the Navy are reported to and processed by the Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law Division). Both claims and suits for salvage against the United States are subject to the two-year limitation of the Public Vessels Act and the Navy's settlement authority.
( b ) *Affirmative claims.* Authorization for the settlement of affirmative salvage claims is contained in 10 U.S.C. 7365. Assertion of such claims is handled in the first instance by the Assistant Supervisor of Salvage (Admiralty), USN, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA OOCL), 2531 Jefferson Davis Highway, NC/3 Room 11E54, Arlington, VA 22242-5160. Salvage claims are referred to the Admiralty Division only if the Assistant Supervisor of Salvage (Admiralty) is unsuccessful in making collection. Any money received in settlement of affirmative salvage claims is credited to appropriations for maintaining salvage facilities by the Navy, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 7367.
[39 FR 9962, Mar. 15, 1974, as amended at 41 FR 26866, June 30, 1976; 55 FR 12174, Apr. 2, 1990; 65 FR 60861, 60862, Oct. 13, 2000; 69 FR 20542, Apr. 16, 2004]
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

## Assistant Secretary, OCO
§ 310.5 Responses to requests for access to records. ( a ) Upon receipt of a request, a component will send an acknowledgment letter to the requester within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) which shall confirm the requester's agreement to pay duplication fees, if any, and provide an assigned case file number for reference purposes.
( b ) In some cases, the DoD Component initially receiving the request may refer the request to another DoD Component or agency. The DoD Component that initially received the request will send the requester a notice of referral that will identify each DoD Component or agency to which the request has been referred, as well as which part of the request has been referred.
( c ) Access to protected health information, including medical records, is governed by the Privacy Act and DoD 6025.18-R, “DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation” (available at *http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/602518r.pdf*).
( d ) When a DoD Component makes a determination to grant a request for access in whole or in part, the DoD Component shall notify the requester in writing or simply provide the requested record. The response to the request may be made in lieu of the acknowledgment of receipt provided the response will be made within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays). The DoD Component shall inform the requester of any fee charged for duplication of the record(s). If the request is made in person, the individual may receive the records directly in a manner not unreasonably disruptive of the DoD Component's operations, upon payment of any applicable fee. If the individual is accompanied by another person, the individual may be required to authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the other person.
( e ) A DoD Component denying a request for access in any respect shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. ( 1 ) The notice of denial consists of: ( i ) A determination to withhold any requested record in whole or in part;
( ii ) A determination that a requested record does not exist or cannot be located; or
( iii ) A determination that what has been requested is not a record subject to the Privacy Act.
( 2 ) The denial notification letter shall be signed by the head of the DoD Component, or the DoD Component head's designee, and shall include: ( i ) The date of the denial;
( ii ) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any Privacy Act exemption(s) applied by the DoD Component in denying the request; and
( iii ) A statement that the denial can be appealed within 60 calendar days in accordance with § 310.6. The statement will include the position title and the address of the appellate authority.
### [§3135. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title II, §2181(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 732]

Section, added Pub. L. 95–454, title IV, §402(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1159; amended Pub. L. 98–168, title III, §301(b), Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1112; Pub. L. 98–615, title III, §306(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3219, directed Office of Personnel Management to submit reports to Congress relating to Senior Executive Service.