alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 3:06cr204-MEF

) WO

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of defendant’s unopposed motion for psychological examination

prior to sentencing, and defendant’s history of substance abuse and psychological problems

from an early age, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. The United States Marshal

for this district shall immediately remove the defendant to the custody of such federal

institution as may be designated by the Attorney General, where the defendant is to be

committed for a period of no more than 45 days for the purpose of the preparation of a presentence examination and report by one or more qualified psychiatrists concerning the mental

condition of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of 18 USC §§ 3552(c) and 4244(b).

Defendant has also requested, and the court hereby ORDERS, that he be examined by a

neurologist in connection with this psychiatric examination. It is further

ORDERED that the examiner(s) conducting the mental examination of the defendant

report in writing to this court within 45 days from the date of the defendant's arrival at the

institution as to their findings, opinions and conclusions relative to the mental condition of

the defendant, and specifically report to and advise this court of any recommendation the

examiner(s) may have as to how the mental condition of the defendant should affect the

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 39 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

sentence in this case, including but not limited to the question of diminished capacity. 18

USC § 4247(c)(4)(F). It is further

ORDERED that the defendant shall be incarcerated and remain at the institution

designated by the Attorney General until the study is completed and that, upon completion

of the study, the defendant shall be returned to the custody of the United States Marshal for

the Middle District of Alabama pending final sentencing.

DONE, this 13th day of February, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 39 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00334-CR

DUSTIN WADE HESTAND AKA DUSTIN 

W. HESTAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13595)

February 27, 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(p)

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

On remand from the court of criminal appeals, this court has considered the 

record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear at 70 FR 30897, May 31, 2005; 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012; 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 10.1 Purpose. ( a ) This part establishes the criteria, procedures, and methods for resolving questions concerning: ( 1 ) The eligibility of individuals who are employed by or applicants for employment with NRC contractors, agents, and other individuals who are NRC employees or applicants for NRC employment, and other persons designated by the Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital Programs of the NRC, for access to Restricted Data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, or for access to national security information;
( 2 ) The eligibility of NRC employees, or the eligibility of applicants for employment with the NRC, for employment clearance; and
( 3 ) The eligibility of individuals who are employed by or are applicants for employment with NRC licensees, certificate holders, holders of standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter, applicants for licenses, certificates, and NRC approvals, and others who may require access related to a license, certificate, or NRC approval, or other activities as the Commission may determine, for access to Restricted Data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, or for access to national security information.
( b ) This part is published to implement the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, Executive Order 10865, 25 FR 1583 (February 24, 1960) Executive Order 10450, 18 FR 2489 (April 27, 1954), and Executive Order 12968, 60 FR 40245 (August 2, 1995).
[64 FR 15641, Apr. 1, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 49483, Aug. 28, 2007]
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 36-2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 36-2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
# L_2014140EN.01017701.xml

| 14.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 140/177 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 140/177

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in view of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 129 of 30 April 2014
  )

On page 3:

for:

‘Article 1

Directive 2003/87/EC is hereby amended as follows:

| (1) | The following Article is inserted:

  “Article 28a
  Derogations applicable in advance of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure

  1.   (...)


  2.   (...)
  As regards activity in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016, Member States shall publish the number of free aviation allowances allocated to each aircraft operator by 1 August 2014.”’, |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The following Article is inserted:

“Article 28a

Derogations applicable in advance of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure

1.   (...)

2.   (...)

As regards activity in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016, Member States shall publish the number of free aviation allowances allocated to each aircraft operator by 1 August 2014.”’,

read:

‘Article 1

Directive 2003/87/EC is hereby amended as follows:

| (1) | The following Article is inserted:

  “Article 28a
  Derogations applicable in advance of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure

  1.   (...)


  2.   (...)
  As regards activity in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016, Member States shall publish the number of free aviation allowances allocated to each aircraft operator by 1 September 2014.”’. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The following Article is inserted:

“Article 28a

Derogations applicable in advance of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure

1.   (...)

2.   (...)

As regards activity in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016, Member States shall publish the number of free aviation allowances allocated to each aircraft operator by 1 September 2014.”’.

---
157 So.2d 231

#### Jimmie H. PACK v. Erbon W. WISE et al.

No. 46961.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Erbon W. Wise et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 155 So.2d'909.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
VermontSuperiorCourtFiled09/1223Chittendennit

### VERMONTSUPERIOR

### COURTChittendenUnit175MainStreet,POBOX187Burlington

### VT05402802-863-3467WWW.vermontjudiciary.org

### CIVILDIVISIONCaseNo.23-CV-01962£9£1.Efi

## ENTRYREGARDINGMOTIONTitle:MotiontoDismiss;MotionforWritofPossession(Motion:4;3)Filer:BiancaWalton;Handy'sHotelsandRentals

### LLCFiledDate:August10,2023;August22,2023

### Thisisanevictionaction

### involvingSectionhousing.Defendantmovestodismissfor

### lackofnoticepursuanttothefederalViolence

### AgainstWomen

### Act

### (VAWA).ThefederalregulationsprovidethattenantsinSectionhousingmustbegivennoticeabouttheir

### VAWArightsatvarioustimes,including

### “[w]ithanynotification

### ofevictionornotificationoftermination

### ofassistance..”24

### C.F.R.5.2005(a)(2)(3).Thereisnodisputethatnosuchnoticewasprovided

### bylandlordwiththeevictionnoticehere.Noristhereanyevidencethatthehousingauthorityprovidedsuchnotice.Landlordrespondsthatthedutyfallsonthehousingauthority,notthelandlord.Theregulationsareadmittedlyconvolutedandcoulduseplain

### Englishrewrite.

### TheissueisWhoconstitutesthe“coveredhousingprovider”here.

### Ll.5.2005(a)(1).Landlordnotesthattheregulationdefinesthattermasincludingwhateverpersonorentity“hasresponsibilityfortheadministrationand/oroversight

### of

### VAWAprotections”

### Handy'sHotelsand

### Rentals

## LLCv.

### BiancaWalton2

and includes housing auth or ities as well as property owners

. Id

. § 5. 2003 1

. It goes on to

argue that “ responsible entity ” is the ho using authority for the type of Section 8 program

at issue here , although it is the property owner for some other programs

. Id

. § 5. 100.

However, the term “ resp o ns i b l e entity ” is not used in Section 5.2005. Even if one re a ds

it into t hat s ection ’ s reference to “ the individual or entity that h a s responsibility

, ” it

makes no sense to say that t h is particular duty rests with the housing authority

. To sen d

the VAWA noti c e “ “[w]ith any notification of eviction ” one must be the person or entity

sending the notification of eviction. It is the property owner who did that here , not the

housing authority

. Id . § 5.200 5(a) (2)(3)

. The duty must fall to that entity. This is

consistent with the provision of the regulations stating that “ [f] or any of the covered

housing programs, it is possible that there may be more than one covered housing

provider; that is, depending upon the VAWA duty or responsibility to be performed by

a covered housing provider, the covered housing provider may not always be the same

individual or entity

. ” Id

. § 5.2003 ( emphasis added)

Order

The motion is granted

. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The motion for

possession is moot.

Electronically signed on September 12, 2023 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

1 Landlord cites Section 5.100 for this provision , but it is not found there. It appears at Section 5.2003.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Freycinet, Appellant.

Submitted October 29, 2007;

decided November 15, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 731.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           131,908
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 192,692
<CASH>                                          20,767
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         788,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,123,768
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                138,646
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       17,324,315
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                409,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     355,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,123,768
<PREMIUMS>                                          67
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,832
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (1,060)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 214,476
<BENEFITS>                                       3,710
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     47,156
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           123,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,183
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,183
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 764.233 Limitations. ( a ) The applicant must comply with the general limitations specified in § 764.102 except § 764.102(f), which does not apply to applicants for the CL Program.
( b ) The applicant must agree to repay any duplicative financial benefits or assistance to CL.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and
                   Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "FORM 10-QSB")
for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 of Universal Detection Technology (the
"ISSUER").

I, Jacques Tizabi, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer of Issuer certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Date:  May 17, 2004


                                            /s/  Jacques Tizabi
                                           ---------------------------------
                                            Name: Jacques Tizabi


                                       27
Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 14 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 14 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6189

WILLIAM A. FISHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

L. WHITE, Guard; BERLIN, Guard; HOLLOWOOD,

Guard; CARTY, Guard,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MR. ANGALO, Surgeon,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-199-3)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 22, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

William A. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

William Fisher appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his

pro se 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Fisher's

complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the district

court's orders requiring that he comply with basic filing requirements. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Because Fisher

may be able to save this action by particularizing his complaint in

compliance with the district court's orders, the order which Fisher

seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
June 26, 2015 

Mr. Joseph Edgar 

Ms. Jennette Heatherly 

Hawkeye Technologies 

Roseville, CA 95678 

Dear Mr. Edgar and Ms. Heatherly: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and 

(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process 

your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 29, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Hawkeye Technologies into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0874), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 802.1 Qualified laboratories. ( a ) *Metrology laboratories.* ( 1 ) Any State metrology laboratory currently approved by the NBS ongoing certification program having auditing capability is automatically approved by the Service.
( 2 ) Any county or city weights and measures jurisdiction approved by NBS or by their respective NBS-Certified State laboratory as being equipped with appropriate traceable standards and trained staff to provide valid calibration is approved by the Service. The State approval may be documented by a certificate or letter. The jurisdiction must be equipped to provide suitable certification documentation.
( 3 ) Any commercial industrial laboratory primarily involved in the business of sealing and calibrating test weights (standards) will be approved by the Service provided: ( i ) It requests written authority to perform tolerance testing of weights used within the Service's program(s) through their approved State jurisdiction. Copies of its request and written reference regarding the State decision shall be provided to the Service. A positive decision by the State will be required as a prerequisite to the Service's granting approval to any commercial laboratory to tolerance test the weights used in testing scales under the jurisdiction of the Service;
( ii ) It has NBS traceable standards (through the State) and trained staff to perform calibrations in a manner prescribed by NBS and/or the State;
( iii ) It is equipped to provide suitable certification documentation;
( iv ) It permits the Service to make onsite visits to laboratory testing space.
( 4 ) Approval of the commercial industrial laboratory will be at the Service's discretion. Once it has obtained approval, the commercial industrial laboratory maintains its site in a manner prescribed by the State and the Service.
( b ) *Type evaluation laboratories.* Any State measurement laboratory currently certified by NBS in accordance with its program for the Certification of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories to conduct evaluations under the National Type Evaluation Program is approved by the Service.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0011) [51 FR 7052, Feb. 28, 1986, as amended at 54 FR 5925, Feb. 7, 1989]
§ 15.3 Communications. Unless otherwise specified, communications concerning the regulations in this part may be addressed to the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and sent either by mail to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; by hand delivery to the NRC's offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland; or, where practicable, by electronic submission, for example, via Electronic Information Exchange, or CD-ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a manner that enables the NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the submission, and process and retrieve it a single page at a time. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html ;* by e-mail to *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov ;* or by writing the Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the NRC can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of nonpublic information. [68 FR 58801, Oct. 10, 2003, as amended at 74 FR 62680, Dec. 1, 2009; 80 FR 74978, Dec. 1, 2015]