alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA AARON KERSHAW,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CHARLES HARRISON,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-15300

D.C. No. CV-06-01180-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Joshua Aaron Kershaw appeals from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

SEP 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-15300

Kershaw contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated pursuant

to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Cunningham v. California, 549

U.S. 270 (2007), when the state trial court engaged in fact-finding to impose an

upper-term sentence. The California courts denied Kershaw’s Sixth Amendment

challenge to his upper term sentence “by applying a rule of decision contrary to

clearly established Supreme Court precedent.” See Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624,

640 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 129 S.Ct. 767 (2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 288-89 (2007) (holding that California’s

determinate sentencing law violates the Sixth Amendment). The district court

erred in concluding that Cunningham announced a new procedural rule of

constitutional law that does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See

Butler, 528 F.3d at 639.

Applying de novo review to the constitutional claim, see id. at 641, any

Sixth Amendment violation was harmless error. The record indicates that the trial

court imposed the upper term sentence based, in part, upon the aggravating

circumstances that Kershaw’s prior convictions were “numerous or increasing in

seriousness” and that Kershaw’s prior performance on probation or parole was

unsatisfactory. The probation report considered by the trial court at sentencing

contains ample evidence to support a jury finding of these aggravating
3 08-15300

circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the finding was made by

the trial court rather than the jury did not have a substantial and injurious effect on

Kershaw’s sentence. See id. at 648; Hoffman v. Arave, 236 F.3d 523, 540 (9th Cir.

2001).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 15b.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to the end that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall solely by reason of his or her handicap be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the
Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: July 28, 2014



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David Watson                     
|David Watson                         
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



2
#### United Aircraft Corporation *v.*International Association of Machinists et al.

The motion of each of the parties that this court review the taxation of costs assessed at the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties the *600plaintiff may file its brief on or before October 16, 1971. A reply brief may be filed on or before November 2, 1971. Decision on the motion for oral argument is reserved pending receipt of the briefs.

*8. Robert Jelley,*for the plaintiff.

*Norman Zolot,*for the defendants.

Submitted October 4

decided October 6, 1971
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsApplication of variable-gain output feedback for high-alpha controlA variable-gain, optimal, discrete, output feedback design approach that is applied to a nonlinear flight regime is described. The flight regime covers a wide angle-of-attack range that includes stall and post stall. The paper includes brief descriptions of the variable-gain formulation, the discrete-control structure and flight equations used to apply the design approach, and the high performance airplane model used in the application. Both linear and nonlinear analysis are shown for a longitudinal four-model design case with angles of attack of 5, 15, 35, and 60 deg. Linear and nonlinear simulations are compared for a single-point longitudinal design at 60 deg angle of attack. Nonlinear simulations for the four-model, multi-mode, variable-gain design include a longitudinal pitch-up and pitch-down maneuver and high angle-of-attack regulation during a lateral maneuver.Document ID19900009118Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsOstroff, Aaron J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102603NAS 1.15:102603Accession Number90N18434Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-66-01-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900009118.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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Starrag USA, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. SPM4A8-l 7-C-0001 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 62036, 62037 

Mr. John Morris 

Project Manager 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Edward R. Murray, Esq. 

Ashley M. Kelly, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

DLA Aviation 

Richmond, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

By email dated April 12, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging a 

contracting officer's final decision dated April 12, 2019. Appellant's notice of appeal 

was signed by Mr. John Morris, who was identified as appellant's project manager. The 

Board docketed these appeals, listed Mr. Morris as appellant's representative, and 

directed appellant by Order dated April 17, 2019 to show that its representative met the 

requirements of Board Rule 15( a). 

By Order dated April 26, 2019, the Board again directed appellant to show that it 

is represented by a person meeting the criteria of Board Rule 15(a). The April 26, 2019 

Order stated that if appellant did not comply with the Order by May 10, 2019, the Board 

may dismiss the appeals without further notice to the parties. On May 14, 2019 

Mr. Morris sent the Board an email stating, "Starrag wishes to cancel the appeal of this 

issue." 

A representative meeting the requirements of Rule 15(a) did not enter a notice of 

appearance. Without a representative meeting the requirements of Rule 15(a), the Board 
is unable to proceed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 

Dated: June 4, 2019 

I concur 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

ministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62036 & 62037, Appeals of Starrag 

USA, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
§ 1900.53 Applicability. ( a ) Appeals of adverse decisions covered by this subpart will be governed by 7 CFR part 11.
( b ) The provisions of this subpart apply to adverse decisions concerning direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants under the following programs: RUS Water and Waste Disposal Facility Loans and Grants Program; RHS Housing and Community Facilities Loan Programs; RBS Loan, Grant, and Guarantee Programs and the Intermediary Relending Program; and determinations of the Rural Housing Trust 1987-1 Master Servicer.
( c ) This subpart does not apply to decisions made by parties outside an agency even when those decisions are used as a basis for decisions falling within paragraph (b) of this section, for example: decisions by state governmental construction standards-setting agencies (which may determine whether RHS will finance certain houses); Davis-Bacon wage rates; flood plain determinations; archaeological and historical areas preservation requirements; and designations of areas inhabited by endangered species.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Creek Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, D. Bruce Horton, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

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

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


Date: November 14, 2007



                                        By: /s/ D. BRUCE HORTON
                                            _________________________________
                                                D. Bruce Horton
                                                Chief Financial Officer
ex10-7.htm


Exhibit 10.7




Building Lease (Steel-Making I)


 


Date: November 30th , 2007


Party A: Handan Hongri Metallurgy Co., Ltd.


Party B: Wuan Hongrong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.


 


Party A, who primarily manufactures medium and thick sheet steel, is a China-foreign joint venture enterprise owned by Hebei Wu’an Yuanbaoshan Industry Group Co., LTD. and Fakei Investment (Hong Kong) Limited.


 


For mutual benefit, both parties have reached the following lease through negotiation:


 



	
A.  

	
Party A will rent 50,117.79 square meters building for Steel-making production from Party B, with a price of 2.01 Yuan per square meter. Annual rental fee would be 1,210,715.32 Yuan, which will be due on December 31th every year. In case of payment failure, Party A has to pay the annual interest calculated by the city's financial institution standard.







 



	
B.  

	
Currently, the lease will expire in 10 years, from January 1st 2008 to December 31st 2017.







 



	
C.  

	
During the rental period, the lease will be terminated for restriction of production caused by policy changing or natural disaster, and Party A has to pay rent to Party B for building usage.







 



	
D.  

	
If there is a change or supplement to be made for this lease, it has to be taken under provision of both parties. Also, any kind of modification has to be made on the paper with seals of both parties.







 



	
E.  

	
For the matters not included, both parties have had understandings under existing principles, and supplements are as effective as this lease.







 



	
F.  

	
This lease has 4 copies, and each party has 2 of them.







 




  





  











  






 



	
Party A: Handan Hongri Metallurgy Co., Ltd.

	 	 
	 	 	
Liu Shenghong 

	 
	 	 	
Legal Representative

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
Date: November 30th , 2007

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Party A: Wuan Hongrong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.

	 	 
	 	 	
Liu Baocang 

	 
	 	 	
Legal Representative

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
Date: November 30th , 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7622

DAVID KEITH SUMRELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-01-304-2)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 8, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Keith Sumrell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Keith Sumrell appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) 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. See Sumrell v. Virginia, No. CA-01-304-2 (E.D.

Va. July 18, 2001). 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
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**Theundersigned officer of **Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.**herebycertifies pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to suchofficer’s knowledge that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard AeroHoldings, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.     Date:August 14, 2006           By: /s/ David Shaw      Name: David Shaw  Title: Chief Executive Officer     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Tennessee Valley Authority

          -  [Meeting No. 10-01]

                    The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on February 11, 2010, at the Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites, Bristol Convention Center, Ballrooms B/C, 3005 Linden Drive, Bristol, Virginia 24202, to consider the matters listed below. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a                     *public listening session*                     which begins at 8:30 a.m. Immediately following the end of the public listening session, the meeting will be called to order to consider the agenda items listed below.                     **Please Note:**                     Speakers must pre-register online at TVA.gov or sign in before the meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the meeting. The Board will answer questions from the news media following the Board meeting.                

# Status: 

Open.

## Agenda

### Old Business

Approval of minutes of November 19, 2009, Board Meeting.

### New Business

1. Chairman's Report.

2. President's Report.

3. Report of the Finance, Strategy, Rates, and Administration Committee:

A. Winning Performance/Long-Term Incentive Compensation for Fiscal Year 2010.

B. Executive Compensation.

C. Extension of interim joint-ownership arrangements with Seven States Corporation for Southaven Power Plant.

4. Report of the Operations, Environment, and Safety Committee:

A. TVA Transmission Standards of Conduct.

5. Report of the Audit, Governance, and Ethics Committee.

6. Report of the Community Relations and Energy Efficiency Committee.

*For more information:*                     Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.                

 February 4, 2010.

Maureen H. Dunn,

General Counsel and Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-2902 Filed 2-5-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**CERTIFCATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of HydroGen Corporation on Form 10-KSB for
      the
      year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I Joshua L. Tosteson
      President 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                April 14, 2008By:
            /s/
                Joshua L. TostesonPresident





This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section
      18 of the Securities Act 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,
      irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
      A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to HydroGen Corporation and will be retained by HydroGen Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
George Samir Wassouf, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

U.S. Dep' t of Homeland Security et aI., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAY 04 20\0 

Clerk, U.S. District an,: 

Bankruptcy Courts 

It t>692 

This matter comes before the Court on the petitioner's application to proceed without 

prepayment of fees, and his pro se habeas petition. The Court will grant the application and will 

dismiss the habeas petition because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Petitioner is presently at liberty in Syria. Petition ~ 5. Formerly a permanent legal 

resident of the United States, he was convicted of bank fraud in the United States District Court 

for the District of New Hampshire, deported, and barred from reentering the United States for a 

period often years. Id ~~ 5, 24-25. In this petition, he alleges a variety of illegal acts on the part 

of the government in both his criminal and deportation proceedings. See id, e.g., ~~ 25 (alleging 

that the federal agents falsified "all" of their affidavits in his criminal case to ensure conviction), 

36 (alleging that his immigration judge was "illegally" assigned to the Immigration Court). 

The general habeas statute applies only to persons "in custody." 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner is not in custody, and his attempt to equate his situation as being in custody because he 

is barred from entering the United States cannot prevail. See Petition ~ 5. Accordingly, this 

petition will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3 
A separate final order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Date: ~ J--5fj 2-0 to 

~ < ;)"i;B uni~es District Judge 

2
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21

 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 The following is a list of the subsidiaries of the Company:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                           Place of
       Subsidiary                         Incorporation
       ----------                         -------------
<S>    <C>                               <C>
 1)    Candela Iberica, S.A.             Spain
 
 2)    Candela France S.A.R.L.           France
 
 3)    Candela K.K.                      Japan
 
 4)    Candela Laser (Deutschland) GmbH  Germany
 
 5)    Candela Skin Care Centers, Inc.   Massachusetts
 
</TABLE>