alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard J. Baltromitis

Submitted April 11

decided April 16, 1968

*L. Scott Melville,*in support of the petition.

*Kenneth W. Mango,*assistant prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
427 A.2d 1230

#### Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, Appellant.

Submitted November 16, 1979.

Michael L. Stibich, for appellant;

Gerard Long, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

The judgment of sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 17-1900

KIRK LASSEND,
Petitioner, Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent, Appellee.

**ERRATA SHEET**
The opinion of this Court, issued on August 2, 2018, is amended as follows:
On page 36, carryover footnote 16, replace "§ 2k2.1(b)(4)(A)" with "§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(A)".
SERVED: APRIL 3, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF LEARJET, INC. DOCKET NO. FAA.;2014-0113 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012CE430011) has been assignedto Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served.onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, andthe other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service List ,.**...--····~--~··** ,,.r··"··········-
..**~-,,** 

# /

. 

### l**-~ ~**  .... ,.,.. R nnie A. Yode{.
. Chief

### Administra~~viiaw Judge 

# (,

_____.....

### The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

### SERVICE LIST -BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Mr. Ralph Acs, Vice President & 

### General Manager Learjet, Inc., Respondent 

### P.O. Box 7707 Wichita, KS 67277-7707 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX:' NOT PROVIDED Brenda R. Mesker, Director ofLegal Services Learjet, Inc
.. One Learjet Way Wichita, KS 67209 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOT PROVIDED Kenneth P. 

### Quinn, Esquire, Respondent's Counsel 

### Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 TEL: 202-663-8000 FAX: 202-663-8007 David Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust, Room506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771 Docket No. FAA-2014-0113 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
§ 803.53 If I am a manufacturer, in which circumstances must I submit a 5-day report? You must submit a 5-day report to us with the information required by § 803.52 in accordance with the requirements of § 803.12(a) no later than 5 work days after the day that you become aware that: ( a ) An MDR reportable event necessitates remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health. You may become aware of the need for remedial action from any information, including any trend analysis or
( b ) We have made a written request for the submission of a 5-day report. If you receive such a written request from us, you must submit, without further requests, a 5-day report for all subsequent events of the same nature that involve substantially similar devices for the time period specified in the written request. We may extend the time period stated in the original written request if we determine it is in the interest of the public health.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of EMRISE Corporation (the “Company”) forthe period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Vice PresidentFinance and Administration of the Company, respectively, pursuant to18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 7, 2008 | By:    | /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA                                   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Carmine T. Oliva                                       |
|                       |   | Chief Executive Officer  (principal executive officer) |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
| Dated: August 7, 2008 | By:    | /s/ D. JOHN DONOVAN                                    |
|                       |   | D. John Donovan                                        |
|                       |   | Vice President Finance and  Administration (principal  |
|                       |   | financial officer)                                     |

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturesthat appear in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
AMENDED CLD
- 133 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 2 3

- 1 629

___________ IN RE: TODD ELLIOTT KOGER, SR. , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W .D. Pa. Civ. No. 2 : 22

- cv
- 0 1823 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 27, 2023
Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : May 31, 2023 )

_________ OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM Todd Elliott Koger, Sr., a frequent filer in the federal courts, has filed in our Court a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition , which is far from a model of clarity, appears to (1) take issue with what has transpired in various Pennsylvani a state

- court

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

proceedings involving Koger and/or certain real property in Pittsburgh , and (2) allege that “Wilkinsburg et al[.]” has breached a 1992 settlement agreement involving Koger and otherwise wronged him

. Although Koger generally refers to our auth ority to grant mandamus relief , he does

not make clear what form of mandamus relief he is seeking here

. 1 And he has failed to
show that he is entitled to any form of mandamus relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (exp laining that, to obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal). Accordingly, we will deny his petition. 2

1 Recently, Koger removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania an ejectment action that had been filed against him in Pennsylvania state court

. In January 2023, the District Court remanded the case to state court based on the District Court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. ( See Dist. Ct. Order entered January 4, 2023, in Cas e No. 2:22

- cv
- 01823.) Koger appealed from that remand order, and we dismissed that appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction in March 2023. See Usorph v. Koger , C.A. No. 23

- 1029. Although the caption of Koger’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed in this mandamus action indicates that his mandamus petition is “[r]elated” to th at District Court case , the petition itself does not appear to seek any relief in connection with those District Court proceedings

.
2 Koger’s “Amended Petition for Emerge ncy TRO Injunctive Relief,” which appears to seek a temporary restraining order, is denied.
#### Pauline Bell *v.*Alan W. Bell

*F. Mac Buckley,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*B. Graeme Smith,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued November 5

decided November 13, 1968

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.5820 Closed-circuit television reading system. ( a ) *Identification.* A closed-circuit television reading system is a device that consists of a lens, video camera, and video monitor that is intended for use by a patient who has subnormal vision to magnify reading material.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[55 FR 48443, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63014, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38814, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.5840 Radiation therapy simulation system. ( a ) *Identification.* A radiation therapy simulation system is a fluoroscopic or radiographic x-ray system intended for use in localizing the volume to be exposed during radiation therapy and confirming the position and size of the therapeutic irradiation field produced. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, treatment planning computer programs, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,007]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 5, 2009, by a company official on behalf of workers of Federal Marine Terminals, Inc., Eastport, Maine.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Accordingly, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 15th day of July 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18053 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
137ATMCrudeStills1332HDS1332Reformer231HDSGasBlending1732UDEX1232FCC431DEP(down)433Alky431DIB1733Cumene137VAC331C4 ISOMPB862PB210CLT NaphthaLT Furnace OilHVYFurnace OilATM Gas OilATBResid 

# #2 F.O. #2 F.O.LT VGOHVY VGOSlurry OilVTB / ResidC4 / C5 PrefactPrefractBtmsC2 / C3DepropC3 / C4 PrepropC4 / C5 DebutC5 Depent

LCOLSD StockHVY CatNaphthaLT Cat NaphthaBBAlkylate

NC4 / C5TXBZ 

# RaffinatePPCumenePremiumRegularLSD / #2F.O.Jet / AV1 KeroC4 

# C4

IC4Propane#6 Fuel OilHVY ReformateBenz. Conc. 

# WinterPB869 HPN

BBPB869 DIBIC4



# LSDCrude137 N/I C4433SHUProcess Flow DiagramPhiladelphia RefineryGirard Pointto 859C4 to431 UnitC3HvyNaphthato 859 & 866to 870PP1232 PPNote: Hatched units arelocated at Point Breeze210A/BATMCrudeStills860Reformer864Unifiner865DistillateHDS869DIB862Light Ends210CVacuumStill866Hydrotreater868FCCU869HPN859HDS210AVACGasolineBlending867 SRUPB AmineSWSGP AmineSystemLT NaphthaHvy NaphthaKerosene &Furnace OilStockCrude“A” ReducedCrudeSour C5/C6NC4C5PropaneLGOHGOResidLCO BBBTX210860864865866SulfurJet FuelAV1 KeroLSD/ No.2 F.O.HVY ReformateCAT GasolineC5/C6PremiumRegularPropane/PropyleneNo. 6 F.O. Stockor Refinery FuelIC4BBGP1232GP1732GP1733GP433No. 6 F.O.870LSGUGP1332GP137 C3GP1732 C3Process Flow DiagramPhiladelphia RefineryPoint Breezefrom 137From 1232Note: Hatched units arelocated at Girard Point
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)

AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



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

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







/s/ PATRICK W. CAVANAGH

Patrick W. Cavanagh

Chief Executive Officer

Williams Controls, Inc.

May 11, 2006
§ 1.318-1 Constructive ownership of stock; introduction. ( a ) For the purposes of certain provisions of chapter 1 of the Code, section 318(a) provides that stock owned by a taxpayer includes stock constructively owned by such taxpayer under the rules set forth in such section. An individual is considered to own the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his spouse (other than a spouse who is legally separated from the individual under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance), and by or for his children, grandchildren, and parents. Under section 318(a)(2) and (3), constructive ownership rules are established for partnerships and partners, estates and beneficiaries, trusts and beneficiaries, and corporations and stockholders. If any person has an option to acquire stock, such stock is considered as owned by such person. The term *option* includes an option to acquire such an option and each of a series of such options.
( b ) In applying section 318(a) to determine the stock ownership of any person for any one purpose— ( 1 ) A corporation shall not be considered to own its own stock by reason of section 318(a)(3)(C);
( 2 ) In any case in which an amount of stock owned by any person may be included in the computation more than one time, such stock shall be included only once, in the manner in which it will impute to the person concerned the largest total stock ownership; and
( 3 ) In determining the 50-percent requirement of section 318(a)(2)(C) and (3)(C), all of the stock owned actually and constructively by the person concerned shall be aggregated.
[T.D. 6969, 33 FR 11999, Aug. 23, 1968]
# C_2015065EN.01004901.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/49

---

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Alnapharm v OHIM — Novartis (Alrexil)

(Case T-839/14)

(2015/C 065/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alnapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Heldt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Alrexil’ — Application for registration No 10 306 249

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 1723/2013-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
#### Mario Frulla *v.*Board of Police Commissioners of the Town of Ridgefield

Argued June 4

decided June *4,*1968

*John A. Arcudi,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Thomas W. VanLenten*and *Romeo G. Petroni,*for the appellant (defendant).

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is dismissed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5

                   CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 22,
1999, with respect to the balance sheets of Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc. as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in
the Form S-8 of Corixa Corporation dated October 21, 1999 related to the
following Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc. benefit plans: 1986 Stock Option Plan,
1996 Director Option Plan and the 1996 Stock Option Plan.

KPMG LLP

Billings, Montana
October 21, 1999
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1750 Computed tomography x-ray system. ( a ) *Identification.* A computed tomography x-ray system is a diagnostic x-ray system intended to produce cross-sectional images of the body by computer reconstruction of x-ray transmission data from the same axial plane taken at different angles. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
(logo) ncbNational Cooperative Bank 2011 Crystal DriveSuite, 800Arlington, VA 22202 February 29, 2016 Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as DepositorAttn: AJ Sfarra375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor J0127-023New York, NY 10152 RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance        WFCM 2015 LC22  Dear Sir/Madam: In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-LC22, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCB Special Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that: a. A review of the activities of the NCB Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision. b. To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Special Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2016.  Best regards,/s/ Karyn MannKaryn MannSenior Vice President, Investor ComplianceNational Cooperative Bank, N.A.
# C_2016048EN.01010001.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/100

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 December 2015 — Probst v Commission

(Case F-136/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Former parliamentary assistant - Commission’s decision to grant the expatriation allowance to former parliamentary assistants as of the date of publication of the information given to staff - Judgments annulling a measure - Substantial new facts - Limited temporal effect - Res judicata - Administrative decisions which have become final - Equal treatment))

(2016/C 048/115)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Norbert Probst (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, Agents, and subsequently T.S. Bohr, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application by the applicant for annulment of the Commission’s decision granting him, with retrospective effect, the expatriation allowance, in so far as the retrospective effect extends merely to 1 September 2013, and the applicant claims that the Commission should grant him that allowance as of his recruitment by the Commission on 1 July 1999.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Probst shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Probst shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 54.

1

---