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

**No. 16**  **- 6330** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. FRANCISCO SERRANO , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00683

- SB

- 6 ; 2:14

- cv - 03839

- SB )

Submitted : June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23,2016

Before DUNCAN , KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Francisco Serrano , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Francisc o Serrano seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Serrano 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2014253EN.01004201.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/42

---

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)

(Case T-356/14)

2014/C 253/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Luis Florido Rodríquez (Sevilla, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4;

| — | order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark Kerashot for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 69  571

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Luis Florido Rodríquez

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘K KERASOL’ for goods in Class 3

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
PUBLIC LAW 115–11—MAR. 27, 2017 131 STAT. 75 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 37: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Feb. 2, considered and passed House. 

Mar. 2, 6, considered and passed Senate. 

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2017): 

Mar. 27, Presidential remarks. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–11 

115th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services 

Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating 

to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, 

the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562 (August 25, 2016)), and 

such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Approved March 27, 2017. 

Mar. 27, 2017 

[H.J. Res. 37] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22 (the"Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

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

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., asNCB Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, asServicing Function Participant, and Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated:March 13,2023

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 25, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 25, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0014. MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, LP et al. v. GENEVIEVE LAMBERT 

EMERSON et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

19A00800
613 P.2d 865

#### Marc H. SLONIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an agency, and Orange Tree Golf Course, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1 CA-UB 007.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C.

July 1, 1980.

Marc H. Slonim, in pro per.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Frank Sagarino, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for defendant-appellee, Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, P. C. by Nathan R. Niemuth, Phoenix, for defendant-appellee, Orange Tree Golf Course, Inc.

OPINION

OGG, Chief Judge.

In this appeal we must determine if the Arizona Department of Economic Security Appeals Board was legally correct in dismissing the appellant Marc H. Slonim’s petition for review of the Arizona Department of Economic Security Appeal Tribunal’s decision denying Slonim unemployment benefits.

In this case, Slonim filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with the Arizona Department of Economic Security (Department) on June 11, 1979. On June 27, 1979, a deputy of the Department determined that Slonim had left his work voluntarily without good cause and was therefore disqualified for benefits. As a result of that decision, there was no charge to the experience rating account of his employer, the appellee Orange Tree Golf Course, Inc.

Slonim appealed the decision of the deputy and, after a hearing, a Department appeal tribunal affirmed the deputy’s decision denying benefits. This decision was mailed to the parties on July 31, 1979. Slonim filed a petition for review dated September 5, 1979, which was received by the Depart*202ment’s appeals board on September 10, 1979. The Department’s unemployment insurance appeals board found the petition to be untimely filed and denied the petition for review. We affirm the decision of the appeals board.

A.R.S. § 23-671(C) provides that a decision of the appeal tribunal becomes final unless within fifteen days of the mailing of such decision a written petition for review is filed with the Department’s unemployment insurance appeals board.1

The record supports the finding of the appeals board that Slonim’s appeal was not filed within the fifteen day time limitation of A.R.S. § 23-671(C).

In light of our finding that Slonim’s appeal was properly dismissed, we need not develop the remaining issues raised in Slo-nim’s pro per appeal. In our review of the record, it appears the Department correctly applied the relevant law in concluding Slo-nim was not entitled to benefits when he voluntarily left his employment without good cause in connection with his work. A.R.S. § 23-775(1).

The decision of the Arizona Department of Economic Security is affirmed.

DONOFRIO and CONTRERAS, JJ., concur.

1

. The pertinent portion of A.R.S. § 23-671(C) reads:

> The decision [of the appeal tribunal] shall become final unless within fifteen days after mailing of the decision any interested party files a written petition for review with the appeals board
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA201 b -AINt- o..(q ~..D 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Joan Lenker Numerous Concur. 

Boeing Lance Wires Numerous Concur. 

Boeing Francis Whichman Numerous Concur. 

A4A Robert Ireland 3/14/2016 Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SWIFT ENERGY
MANAGED PENSION ASSETS PARTNERSHIP 1989-1 LTD'S BALANCE SHEET AND STAATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS CONTAINED IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEP-30-1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          96,370
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,178
<PP&E>                                       3,118,457
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,773,654)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,576,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,572,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,576,981
<SALES>                                        401,039
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               401,631
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,826<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                213,311
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            213,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   213,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES LEASE OPERATING EXPENSES, PRODUCTION TAXES AND DEPRECIATION AND
AMORTIZATION EXPENSE. EXCLUDES GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND INTEREST EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KEVIN LLOYD STANLEY, AKA Kevin

Stanley,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50206

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00486-ODW-1

Central District of California, 

Los Angeles

ORDER AMENDING

MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION

AND DENYING PETITION FOR

REHEARING

Before: TROTT, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

The Memorandum Disposition filed on August 16, 2012 is AMENDED as

follows:

On page 4 of the Memorandum Disposition, the following sentence is

deleted: “Rather, the evidence shows that Solorio accessed the computer’s hard

drive remotely, which would have bypassed any screen displaying the user

accounts.” 

With this amendment, appellant’s petition for rehearing, filed August 17,

2012, is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed.

FILED

AUG 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIncreased Jet Noise Due to a "Nominally Laminar" State of Nozzle Exit Boundary LayerA set of 2-in. diameter nozzles is used to investigate the effect of varying exit boundary layer state on the radiated noise from high-subsonic jets. It is confirmed that nozzles involving turbulent boundary layers are the quietest while nozzles involving a "nominally laminar" boundary layer are loud especially on the high-frequency side of the sound pressure level spectrum. The latter boundary layer state involves a "Blasius-like" mean velocity profile but higher turbulence intensities compared to those in the turbulent state. The higher turbulence in the initial region of the jet shear layer leads to increased high-frequency noise. The results strongly suggest that an anomaly noted with subsonic jet noise databases in the literature is due to a similar effect of differences in the initial boundary layer state.Document ID20170004649Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsZaman, K. B. M. Q.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 19, 2017Publication DateJanuary 1, 2017Subject CategoryAerodynamicsAcousticsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN37950NASA/TM-2017-219440E-19327Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170004649.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20170004650Supplemented ByIncreased Jet Noise Due to a "Nominally Laminar" State of Nozzle Exit Boundary Layer20170004650See AlsoIncreased Jet Noise Due to a "Nominally Laminar" State of Nozzle Exit Boundary Layervisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ECO2 Plastics,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), Raymond M. Salomon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does
hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350), that to his knowledge:
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Raymond M.
Salomon
 By:
Raymond M. Salomon
 Its:
Chief Financial Officer
 
 Date:
November 5, 2009
 
 [A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ECO2
Plastics, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
Calendar No. 69

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 110

RESOLUTION

M

Relating to the purchase of calendars.

AY 20 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Placed on the calendar
III

Calendar No. 69

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 110

Relating to the purchase of calendars.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 20 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. FORD, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported the

following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

RESOLUTION

Relating to the purchase of calendars.

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Adminis2 tration is authorized to expend from the contingent fund

3 of the Senate, upon vouchers approved by the chairman

4 of that committee, not to exceed $76,960 for the purchase

5 of one hundred and four thousand 1994 ‘‘We The People’’

6 calendars. The calendars shall be distributed as prescribed

7 by the committee.
EXHIBIT 10.7(c)


 


OTHER COMPENSATION FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


The principal compensation arrangements and practices for the registrant's non-employee directors generally are governed by the registrant’s Director Policy. Relevant portions of the Director Policy are filed as a separate exhibit (listed as Exhibit 10.5(n) to the registrant’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2006).  The registrant reimburses its directors for their expenses incurred in attending meetings. The registrant does not consider this to be compensatory. In addition, the following benefits have been approved by the Board as additional compensation to non-employee directors for service as a director:


 





	
             
 	
            1)
 	
            a personal account executive;
 






 





	
             
 	
            2)
 	
            a no fee personal checking account for the director and his or her spouse;
 






 





	
             
 	
            3)
 	
            a FirstCheck debit card;
 






 





	
             
 	
            4)
 	
            a no fee VISA card;
 






 





	
             
 	
            5)
 	
            no fee for a safe deposit box;
 






 





	
             
 	
            6)
 	
            no fee for traveler's checks and cashier's checks; and
 






 





	
             
 	
            7)
 	
            if the Board has authorized a stock repurchase program, the repurchase of shares of the registrant's common stock at the day's volume-weighted average price with no payment of any fees or commissions if the repurchase of the director's shares is otherwise permissible under the repurchase program that has been authorized.
 






 


Directors who are officers of the registrant are not separately compensated for their services as directors.
# C_2014351EN.01001502.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/15

---

Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T-552/14)

2014/C 351/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 199/2014-5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 199/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37  582

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---