alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 50.32 Elimination of repetition.

In his application, the applicant may incorporate by reference information contained in previous applications, statements or reports filed with the Commission: *Provided,* That such references are clear and specific.
#### WHALEN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Action by Michael F. Whalen against the City of New York. E. C. Kindleberger, of New York City, for appellant. H. O. Cohen, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
§ 52.55 Duration of certification. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a standard design certification issued under this subpart is valid for 15 years from the date of issuance.
( b ) A standard design certification continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any proceeding on an application for a combined license or an operating license that references the standard design certification and is docketed either before the date of expiration of the certification, or, if a timely application for renewal of the certification has been filed, before the Commission has determined whether to renew the certification. A design certification also continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any hearing held under § 52.103 before operation begins under a combined license that references the design certification.
( c ) An applicant for a construction permit or a combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a design certification application has been docketed but not granted.
# EUR-Lex - 31985R1907 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31985R1907

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1907/85 of 10 July 1985 on the list of vine varieties and regions providing imported wine for the making of sparkling wines in the Community **

*
Official Journal L 179 , 11/07/1985 P. 0021 - 0021 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 18 P. 0230 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 36 P. 0058 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 18 P. 0230 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 36 P. 0058 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1907/85

of 10 July 1985

on the list of vine varieties and regions providing imported wine for the making of sparkling wines in the Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 798/85 (2), and in particular Article 48a thereof,

Whereas Article 48a of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 provides that the wine imported into the Community which may be used in the making of sparkling wines must derive from vine varieties and wine-growing regions enabling it to be distinguished from wine produced in the Community; whereas a list of such varieties and regions should therefore be drawn up;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The wine imported into into the Community which may be used in making sparkling wines must derive from:

(a) the Feteasca neagra variety cultivated in the southern and eastern Sub-Carpathian foothills in Romania;

(b) the Feteasca and Feteasca regala varieties cultivated in the southern and eastern Sub-Carpathian foothills and Transylvania in Romania.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 July 1985.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 54, 5. 3. 1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 89, 29. 3. 1985, p. 1.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UA N CARLOS C HA VEZ GOM EZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50246 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 01 3-JF W -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , S IL V E R M A N an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J u a n C a r lo s C h a v e z G o m e z ap p e a ls th e s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is gu i l ty pl eat o b ei ng an i l l egal al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED SEP 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSG om e z c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byde t e rm i ni ng tha thi s pr i or

conv i ct i on for a ss aul tw i th a fi re arm , i n v i ol at i on of C al i forni a P enal C od e § 245( a ) ( 2) , c ons t i tut e d ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2, be c aus e s e c t i on 2 4 5 (a)(2 ) d o es n o tco n t ai n th e req u i si t e i n t en to r u se o f fo rce. G o m ez co n ced es, ho w ever , thatthi s c on t ent i on i s f orec l osed . Se e U

ni te d States v . G r aj e da , 581 F . 3d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 1 - 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e al s o U ni te d States v . H

e r on- Sal i nas , 566 F . 3d 89 8, 89 9 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). A s G om e z f

urthe rc onc e de s , hi s c ont e nt i ons c onc e rni ng A lm enda rez–T orres a r e a ls o f o r e c lo s e d . Se e G r aj e da , 58 1 F . 3d at11 97 (hol di ng that A lm enda rez–T

orres i s b i n d i n g u n l e s s i ti s e x p r e s s l yo v e rru l e db yth e Su p r e me C ou rt ). AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4170

JOSEPH IZELL MOSLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-02-376)

Submitted: October 29, 2003

Decided: November 17, 2003

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Christopher J. Moran, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J.

MORAN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph Izell Mosley appeals his conviction and sentence for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)

(2000). We remand this case to the district court for a determination

of excusable neglect. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 conditions federal appellate

jurisdiction on the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P.

4(b)(1)(A) states that a defendant in a criminal case must file an

appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment or the notice of appeal

by the government. It is well-settled that compliance with Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S.

244, 248 (1992); United States v. Schuchardt, 685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th

Cir. 1982). In a criminal case, when a notice of appeal is filed within

thirty days after the expiration of the ten-day appeal period, the district court may grant an extension upon a showing of excusable

neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351,

351 (4th Cir. 1985). In such cases, we generally remand to the district

court for the limited determination of whether there has been good

cause or excusable neglect to excuse the late filing. Reyes, 759 F.2d

at 353-54. 

The district court’s judgment of conviction was entered on December 18, 2002. The ten-day appeal period expired on January 3, 2003.

Mosley filed the notice of appeal on January 30, 2003, within thirty

days after the expiration of the ten-day appeal period. Accordingly,

we remand the case to the district court for a limited excusable

neglect determination. 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.

REMANDED

2 UNITED STATES v. MOSLEY
§ 707.2 Scope. ( a ) This part applies to the following contracts with DOE, at sites owned or controlled by DOE which are operated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended: ( 1 ) Management and operating contracts; and
( 2 ) Other contracts or subcontracts with a value of $25,000 or more, and which have been determined by DOE to involve: ( i ) Access to or handling of classified information or special nuclear materials;
( ii ) High risk of danger to life, the environment, public health and safety, or national security; or
( iii ) Transportation of hazardous materials to or from a DOE site.
( b ) Individuals described in § 707.7 (b) and (c) will be subject to random drug testing; to drug testing as a result of an occurrence, as described in § 707.9; and to drug testing on the basis of reasonable suspicion, as described in § 707.10.
( c ) Applicants for employment in testing designated positions will be tested in accordance with § 707.8.
NO. SCPW-10-0000207
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NOS. 88-2209 and 89-0024)

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Trader, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that forfeiture of bail is not a proceeding for which petitioner is entitled to appointment of counsel. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 802-1 (1993); State v. Camara, 81 Hawai # i 324, 329 n.7, 916 P.2d 1225, 1330 n.7 (1996); Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Accordingly, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-10-0000207 22-DEC-2010 01:17 PMIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 22, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Rom A. Trader

2
#### FLANAGAN et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Action by James Flanagan and another against Egbert E. Thomas.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment for specific performance affirmed, with costs. The learned Special Term has found that the judgment in foreclosure in the action of the Columbus Trust Company against the heirs at law of Lula P. McGarry and others is conclusive upon all the parties thereto, and barred the equity of redemption. This conclusion is well sustained by the judgment roll, and by the evidence aliunde from the Surrogate’s Court of Orange county. That record of letters of administration on the estate of Lula P. McGarry to a creditor as administrator is followed by the administrator’s subsequent receipt of the surplus money in this foreclosure, and its distribution among the deceased’s creditors. As proof of death there was, therefore, the inference from the exact identity of names (16 Cyc. 1055), confirmed by the deceased being described as in the town of New Windsor, where the mortgaged land was situated, together with-the surrogate’s subsequent disposition of the proceeds of this mortgaged property. The other objections to dispensing with notice of the application for the appointment of a guardian for the unknown heirs, and to the form of the order of reference, do not affect the judgment, and are therefore unavailable to this defendant.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Avery, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 9, 1978, affirmed (see *People v Finlayson, 76*AD2d 670). Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80810-80811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32529]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 10 a.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office 
Building, 131 ``M'' Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended.

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission 
meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides a 
recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for the most recent information on these meetings. The EEOC 
provides sign

[[Page 80811]]

language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing 
impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by 
using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4070.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2010-32529 Filed 12-21-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
806.501 Requirement.

The Associate Executive Director, Office of Procurement Policy, Systems and Oversight (AED, PPSO)

is designated as the VA Advocate for Competition for the agency. The AED, PPSO may further

delegate the authority in this section to appoint an alternate agency advocate for competition and

shall designate procuring activity advocates for competition in accordance with FAR 6.501. A

complete list of VA procuring activity advocates for competition can be found at

https://www.va.gov/oal/business/pps/competition-advocates.asp.

Parent topic: Subpart 806.5 - Advocates for Competition
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew
Kang, 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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2
(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. Based on
my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
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.



By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as
Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date:

March 30, 2017
#### SPACZYNSKI, Respondent, v. ISAAC G. JOHNSON & CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Alojzy Spaczynski, an infant, by Frank Gorski, his guardian ad litem, against Isaac G. Johnson & Co.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Kirlin Securities, Inc., Appellant, v Rita Sand, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 676]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated June 21, 2004, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered January 18, 2005, which denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrator’s award was not made in manifest disregard of the law or the facts presented at the hearing *(see Matter of Bart v Miller,*302 *698AD2d 379, 380 [2003]; *Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v Crisanti,*289 AD2d 83 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
226 So.2d 773

#### Davis LITTLETON v. ARROW FOOD DISTRIBUTOR, INC., et al.

No. 50027.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Arrow Food Distributor, Inc., et al applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 224 So.2d 131.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED 
DECEMBER 31, 1996. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,268
<PP&E>                                          14,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,135,175         
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,109
<SALES>                                         47,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,760
<CGS>                                           31,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (263)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,359
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (436)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,923
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 170.330 Total compensation.

*Total Compensation* has the meaning given in paragraph e.5 of the award term in Appendix A to this part.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 666 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit privatelyfunded travel by any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 

or employee of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2006 

Mr. GOODE (for himself and Mr. MCCOTTER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

prohibit privately-funded travel by any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 

House. 

1 Resolved, Clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the 

2 House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 

3 the following: 

4 ‘‘(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

5 clause, no Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, of6 ficer, or employee of the House may accept a gift of travel 
2 

•HRES 666 IH 

1 (including any transportation, lodging, and meals during 

2 such travel) from any private source.’’. 

Æ
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:19 AM

To: 'veteransfoundationfl@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Veterans Helping Veterans (FAA-2015-0520)

July 30, 2015 

Dear Mr. Norvaisas: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0520). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by August 13, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov