alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 448** 

EMANUEL C. SIMMONS , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

– Appell ee . Appeal from the United Stat es District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond. James R. Spencer , Chief District Judge. ( 3 :09

- cv - 00 406

- JRS )

Submitted : September 2 8 , 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judge s .
Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
.
Emanuel C. Simmons , Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake , A ssistant Attorney General , Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel C. S immons seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certifica te of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reason able jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the m aterials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
#### § 417.655 How will other Federal awarding agencies know about an administrative agreement that is the result of a settlement?

The suspending or debarring official who enters into an administrative agreement with you must report information about the agreement to the designated integrity and performance system within three business days after entering into the agreement. This information is required by section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (41 U.S.C. 2313).
§ 1125.30 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970, as supplemented by subpart B of this part), other than a section 845 transaction described in § 1125.20;
( b ) Respondent in a DoD Component's nonprocurement suspension or debarment action;
( c ) DoD Component's debarment or suspension official; or
( d ) DoD Component's grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into a nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction.
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0269 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0269

**89/269/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Belgium (Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0024 - 0024 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Belgium (Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic) (89/269/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 22 June 1988, Belgium sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Belgium is hereby approved.

Article 2 Belgium shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
#### § 2339.30 What policies and procedures must I follow?

(a) *General.* You must follow the policies and procedures specified in applicable sections of the OMB guidance in Subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part.

(b) *Specific sections of OMB guidance that this part supplements.* In implementing the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 182, this part supplements four sections of the guidance, as shown in the following table.

| Section of OMB guidance in 2 CFR | Section in this part where supplemented, 2 CFR | What the supplementation clarifies |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) 182.225(a) | § 2339.225 | Who in SSA a recipient other than an individual must notify if an employee is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute in the workplace. |
| (2) 182.300(b) | § 2339.300 | Who in SSA a recipient who is an individual must notify if he or she is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity. |
| (3) 182.500 | § 2339.500 | Who in SSA is authorized to determine that a recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part. |
| (4) 182.505 | § 2339.505 | Who in SSA is authorized to determine that a recipient who is an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part. |

(c) *Sections of the OMB guidance that this part does not supplement.* Our policies and procedures are the same as those in the OMB guidance for any section not included in the table in paragraph (b) of this section.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

458 KA 10-00518 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID L. MAULL, ALSO KNOWN AS POOCHIE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

JAMES L. DOWSEY, III, WEST VALLEY (KELIANN M. ELNISKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY (KELLY M. BALCOM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered June 26, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Cattaraugus County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]). We agree with defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered because County Court failed to advise him before he entered his plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision ( see People v Catu , 4 NY3d 242, 245; People v Antonetti , 74 AD3d 1912). We therefore conclude that reversal is required, “notwithstanding the absence of a postallocution motion” ( People v Louree , 8 NY3d 541, 545-546). In light of our determination, we need not address defendant’s remaining contentions.

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81589-81590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32594]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting Date Change

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On Tuesday, December 14, 2010, the Department of Defense 
announced by publication in the Federal Register (75 FR 77848) closed 
meetings of the Missile Defense

[[Page 81590]]

Advisory Committee. These meetings have been rescheduled from January 
19-20, 2011, to January 6-7, 2011. There are no other changes to the 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Bagnati, Designated Federal 
Officer at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d09d94919390bdb4b1febdb9bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d19c95909291bcb5b0ffbcb8bd">[email protected]</span></a>, phone/voice mail 703-695-6438, or mail at 7100 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100.

    Dated: December 22, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-32594 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 950.42 Disclosure. Information received from a sponsor by the Department may be available to the public subject to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 552, 18 U.S.C. 1905 and 10 CFR part 1004; provided that: ( a ) Subject to the requirements of law, information such as trade secrets, commercial and financial information that a sponsor submits to the Department in writing shall not be disclosed without prior notice to the sponsor in accordance with Department regulations concerning the public disclosure of information. Any submitter asserting that the information is privileged or confidential should appropriately identify and mark such information.
( b ) Upon a showing satisfactory to the Program Administrator that any information or portion thereof obtained under this regulation would, if made public, divulge trade secrets or other proprietary information, the Department may not disclose such information.
§ 905.32 Resource extensions and resource pool size. ( a ) Western will extend a project-specific percentage of the marketable resource, determined to be available at the time future resource extensions begin, to existing customers with long-term firm power contracts. The remaining unextended power will be used to establish project-specific resource pools. An initial level of 96 percent of the marketable resource will be extended for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division and the Loveland Area Projects.
( b ) At two 5-year intervals after the effective date of the extension to existing customers, Western shall create a project-specific resource pool increment of up to an additional 1 percent of the long-term marketable resource under contract at the time. The size of the additional resource pool increment shall be determined by Western based on consideration of the actual fair-share needs of eligible new customers and other appropriate purposes.
( c ) The initial pool percentages shall be applied to the marketable resource determined to be available at the time future resource extensions begin. Subsequent percentages shall be applied to the resource under contract at the time.
( d ) The additional resource pool increments shall be established by pro rata withdrawals, on 2 years' notice, from then-existing customers. Withdrawals could be mitigated or delayed if good water conditions exist.
( e ) Once the extensions for existing customers and allocations to new customers from the resource pool have been made, additional power resources may become available for various reasons. Any additional available resources will be used as follows: ( 1 ) If power is reserved for new customers but not allocated, or resources are offered but not placed under contract, this power will be offered on a pro rata basis to customers that contributed to the resource pool through application of the extension formula in § 905.33.
( 2 ) If power resources become available as a result of the enhancement of existing generation, project-use load efficiency upgrades, the development of new resources, or resources turned back to Western, Western may elect to use this power to reduce the need to acquire firming resources, retain the power for operational flexibility, sell these resources on a short-term basis, or allocate the power.
( 3 ) If resources become available due to imposition of penalties pursuant to § 905.17, Western may make such resources available within the marketing area to existing customers that are in compliance with subpart B, subject to withdrawal.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAR 23, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12647

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00753-CV-CAM-1

JOHN G. WESTINE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN WILLIE SCOTT,

Atlanta,

Respondent,

KATHLEEN HAWK,

Director of the Federal Bureau

of Prisons,

WARDEN WILEY,

US PROBATION OFFICE Atlanta, New Warden,

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 23, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner/Appellant John G. Westine, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial

of his motion for a status hearing on his amended “writ of habeas corpus under the

savings clause.” Westine argues that he is actually innocent of his offenses of

conviction and is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings

clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He asserts that his claim was a properly filed § 2241

habeas petition.

“[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 74

(2008).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Westine has abandoned any

challenge to the denial of his motion for a status hearing by not raising any

arguments related to it in his brief on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the denial of his

motion.

AFFIRMED.

2
###### Editorial Note on Part 63

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 63.64 Notice to State.

If the Governor and legislature of the State of Nevada have jointly designated, on their behalf, a single person or entity to receive notice and information from the Commission under this part, the Commission will provide the notice and information to the jointly designated person or entity instead of the Governor and legislature separately.
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Joachim Hensel, certify that:




1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2013-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2.              Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.              Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4.              I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and


5.              All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association.




Dated: March 21, 2014




By:
/s/ Joachim HenselName:
Joachim HenselTitle:
Vice President – Finance & CFO

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
|    |                                                                                           |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |  |  |
| February 28, 2019 |   | By: | /s/ Howard Schwimmer |
|                   |   |   | Howard Schwimmer |
|                   |   |   | Co-Chief Executive Officer |
#### § 1201.2 Definitions.

Throughout this part, the term “DOT Component” refers to any Division, Office, or Mode (*e.g.,* the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), and the Surface Transportation Board (STB)) within the Department of Transportation awarding Federal financial assistance. In addition, the term “DOT Headquarters” refers to the Secretary of Transportation or any office designated by the Secretary to fulfill headquarters' functions within any office under the Secretary's immediate supervision.
Summary of May 10, 2006 oral agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of May 10, 2006 oral agreement with James A. Clishem, its President and Chief Executive Officer 
 On
May 10, 2006, Active Power entered into an oral agreement with James A. Clishem in connection with his appointment as Chief Executive Officer of the company. Pursuant to the terms of such agreement, Mr. Clishem will receive an annual base
salary of $300,000 and his annual bonus target under Active Power’s Executive Compensation Plan will be 100% of his annual base salary. Mr. Clishem also was granted, effective May 10, 2006, an option to purchase 200,000 shares of
Active Power common stock at an exercise price equal to the per-share fair market value on the date of grant, which shall vest at a rate of 25% per year over four years. Mr. Clishem will continue to participate in Active Power’s
employee benefit programs and will be entitled to a severance payment equal to six months of his then current salary in the event his employment is terminated by Active Power for reasons other than cause.
#### § 1532.1200 How will I know if I am disqualified under the CAA or CWA?

There may be several ways that you learn about your disqualification. You are legally on notice by the statutes that a criminal conviction the CAA or CWA automatically disqualifies you. As a practical matter, you may learn about your disqualification from your defense counsel, a Federal contract or award official, or from someone else who sees your name in the EPLS. As a courtesy, the EPA will attempt to notify you and the owner, lessor or supervisor of the violating facility that your names have been entered into the EPLS. The EPA will inform you of the procedures for seeking reinstatement and give you the name of a person you can contact to discuss your reinstatement request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 871 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 871

   Recognizing Sam Hornish, Jr. for winning the 90th running of the 
                           Indianapolis 500.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2006

 Mr. Gillmor submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing Sam Hornish, Jr. for winning the 90th running of the 
                           Indianapolis 500.

Whereas Sam Hornish, Jr. was born in Bryan, Ohio, was raised in Defiance, Ohio, 
        and currently resides in Napoleon, Ohio, all of which are in Ohio's 5th 
        Congressional District;
Whereas Sam Hornish, Jr. competes in the Indy Racing League with Team Penske and 
        has twice won the championship of that league; and
Whereas Sam Hornish, Jr. won the 90th running of the Indianapolis 500 on May 28, 
        2006: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives recognizes Sam 
Hornish, Jr. for his victory in the Indianapolis 500.
                                 <all>
```